<%BANNER%>

Promise or Peril: How Elite Newspapers Frame Stem Cell Research

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101124_AAAABZ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-24T18:05:14Z PACKAGE UFE0011426_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 107231 DFID F20101124_AABSNX ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH taylor_k_Page_48.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3aa4fef999d7deddd3daae2a91c0ebc7
SHA-1
90cdeab4f9fdb47f83619228f6ffa23b8c9dbe4b
1053954 F20101124_AABSPA taylor_k_Page_09.tif
0d001684658b6470111c1233320e4d3a
110ada22224a1fe994389203d1d89eb2760853ff
94212 F20101124_AABSOL taylor_k_Page_75.jp2
bf158513de79b9051b54e3f702ea6676
90dade2e568488060307e40fd8f41a849688f15b
110208 F20101124_AABSNY taylor_k_Page_49.jp2
7ad85723a4c193baf63ee6605f16cb12
48970d9202931d868e2e63fcb17e0f736a8831f4
F20101124_AABSPB taylor_k_Page_10.tif
bdd90cdb29a7c38ccdcefdae5c42dc7c
1b131ad6d828df9df11b546a4cfd71656748c50b
65121 F20101124_AABSOM taylor_k_Page_76.jp2
81b138cb93553cc13acb413fd340d04d
96b4bef2637356a6c584d154879c8897b9846811
110488 F20101124_AABSNZ taylor_k_Page_51.jp2
13a13476177f3f5932ac787cfb11b590
f609721b21e7afeb54cb1eee4854c1542eae4eeb
F20101124_AABSPC taylor_k_Page_11.tif
7068d38c0fa44f51d3ecc278ed7a37d0
f6323274294b224ef7a4594b849c53f8b16abe47
50861 F20101124_AABSON taylor_k_Page_77.jp2
9df7bef9304aad4978232d888b2baa8f
2a09961ded9d9a1ad49a4e5a0b03773c6e10fab5
F20101124_AABSPD taylor_k_Page_13.tif
2d2301843a6017915020d9167a79bdeb
0a80db2c8b93dcf1b06933f140c701652fe7c8c6
139819 F20101124_AABSOO taylor_k_Page_80.jp2
5d1f9fff251abc2a297cf5dac8ab085d
0fae0ee01da05a2d395d22a553fe7213ee124635
136316 F20101124_AABSOP taylor_k_Page_81.jp2
e5aa16487cb9dda88126064d84b5cfd4
63b3398b7629770b26a6b3f4e1706cb69d4ef8e2
F20101124_AABSPE taylor_k_Page_14.tif
f9f50d40f66b71740f0e62d1a1ef088c
4f45ca8743bb28c9a1a0f6dd6a8575f2b263ef59
51951 F20101124_AABSOQ taylor_k_Page_82.jp2
2dda4f1e1373a89ab2e24dd8907b82ae
6ca8cc319b323f1cd6dc99ce50fd736d9ceec375
F20101124_AABSPF taylor_k_Page_16.tif
74a26f5dff5b1d1536d753aef13990a2
34cbc1189a4ced305b899d92d0f2d02a9058fc33
1051985 F20101124_AABSOR taylor_k_Page_87.jp2
86638244a8e272fe4b7a1ac5134376d4
f051df88b2143688c26df06b8d82a680fa276b79
25271604 F20101124_AABSPG taylor_k_Page_17.tif
183c8c21d1c9e05cd5886aef94417a99
81a42c6a4e5354b0fbae8b6e32ab5d5e9e445aa7
131684 F20101124_AABSOS taylor_k_Page_88.jp2
3d66585d2f9fa5f741b45754a3f02138
44406821d36cfaa8029ed64f87d61c6751bfd8d0
F20101124_AABSPH taylor_k_Page_18.tif
5109d14d58617a0cf86a6c601e912710
8698efc4d30d09ab3328325a0c0bb6c32440f8c9
83868 F20101124_AABSOT taylor_k_Page_91.jp2
515ec02bc37cb4f64f3c3127d0d9b1bf
1f47e9765aeaea4cc26fb5f3c8e154195bcadc2f
F20101124_AABSPI taylor_k_Page_19.tif
68a75f5183569792360f7a583587bb4c
7e87775067f355c754a7a554a4c1e6170f9de627
F20101124_AABSOU taylor_k_Page_01.tif
0aa19ee44dad36290d9ba87cdfcc7b22
e682ae75e81fc7893d1e436ec8eb98ecc61ebd67
F20101124_AABSPJ taylor_k_Page_20.tif
4bb3e4fa9517bd8b369a37af9d335c1b
bd27b790e27ba032e07d9088e73da2fd618583a0
F20101124_AABSOV taylor_k_Page_02.tif
8464d5b97a8d40ae45d03736b34783f8
4c32d9220d7f11ddff812ae9db06a9ade28cc948
F20101124_AABSPK taylor_k_Page_22.tif
904a1d9b08120fecd0fb9d4bcae0c314
30e1408abde0f474966eb84794877ddf860e01fd
F20101124_AABSOW taylor_k_Page_03.tif
94e23b56ae34846d2fa2ffeee53b4145
8c3917d098d19fda8e15a4b1d0769e7919389624
F20101124_AABSQA taylor_k_Page_53.tif
e48478beb43f32e7d351e20298850db2
71a6e4bd5bb35d66dfbe7dd09d8d2870cfd627d7
F20101124_AABSPL taylor_k_Page_23.tif
988c80cd13ec162d12888cf08fe61696
2ae178d3d76c03c5a885cfdf537f76d41e5b88bd
F20101124_AABSOX taylor_k_Page_05.tif
838d2f5521954862c063de4fe43d4b2a
1c81102e0ea6171f0bb4486054e47a95b85c6385
F20101124_AABSPM taylor_k_Page_24.tif
a506c4ad1abbf9682ea0405eb45802a6
a966b8669ac77cbf34b4051b0fd44da427e7114b
F20101124_AABSOY taylor_k_Page_06.tif
f378b54c688ea6c59af7f31b73de5594
363ee3fb090324224eb5aba2aa589473ab285797
F20101124_AABSQB taylor_k_Page_54.tif
53bc0e0066055248644cc91c9fb5cd2b
266f0c0f17c0e60dfe714035fe339eae4d1a5067
F20101124_AABSPN taylor_k_Page_29.tif
9f3dedcb81bcef77bc92340aa9398771
e3f328530202997ecb65fc10d49acbd11c12b4b5
F20101124_AABSOZ taylor_k_Page_08.tif
3baa1addf32abf5452e8e5c972581c84
37202d04851a4067cb1dededd590168e2b820f54
F20101124_AABSQC taylor_k_Page_55.tif
c78a4c257141a05737b620578c6060ee
fbb63440925ea2eba832b8519a4d9cd0a6f52231
F20101124_AABSPO taylor_k_Page_31.tif
46f4758de621bfdfa05f2a661a5eb063
c015e4e38c20d844c96807aaa4712768ed054fdb
F20101124_AABSQD taylor_k_Page_59.tif
3e08c1068696f0b2b17646bf6b6a2c0d
8c03219b016bfaef98c231fa0aba0acfd4bda619
F20101124_AABSPP taylor_k_Page_32.tif
e4d4d38ef258ad6e9aa802d5a1072fd2
23443b0dd9368db775521e2a87ca795c860d4640
F20101124_AABSQE taylor_k_Page_60.tif
96f4e40d8f242e943ead6b037489cca8
11c7d0158a87ee91d21aed21853980e1cd5ed617
F20101124_AABSPQ taylor_k_Page_34.tif
2b0f7a7668451674788d7548eea6997e
0f9f8cbaf12c673109258f0d4010884bfbb5ce70
F20101124_AABSPR taylor_k_Page_35.tif
7f0d0723c59cdf7c5623d89bc6c8b270
b972e3e380c3e00f2f025abccf110fbe8a9fb77b
F20101124_AABSQF taylor_k_Page_62.tif
cf96904d1c12b6abedb3807aff46b4fa
2a15ffeb1e0c0727e16e6df74da0fcf4a9f688b8
F20101124_AABSPS taylor_k_Page_36.tif
0d7ffb47f2293a3a7d5cc008c8507d2e
37c59c4d5dff6571c7e1b132152cade92481929f
F20101124_AABSQG taylor_k_Page_64.tif
6c54627955a3b5e1a7a963404fc38219
9479ddb877dccfd012f66a4939efae29a04efd85
F20101124_AABSPT taylor_k_Page_39.tif
1dcea46f2afb04dd3fced0fe13e62636
6e5808db6a76f458cbfe45672ceb0b873ef2ea73
F20101124_AABSQH taylor_k_Page_65.tif
771c2e71c9fa22bbb7743f8ab6504880
b50da44d4b3a84a68ea2eb76d255baba0f095345
F20101124_AABSPU taylor_k_Page_41.tif
0bd24ef3b821881568b91470093a8da1
b9ca2348b508d6ba099dbcad201f24322a2fab7e
F20101124_AABSQI taylor_k_Page_67.tif
37bb93526e8586e3f5c1aa017d8325ac
066c85d6d5f3a4ba4809b8eea65d6483cf868fdc
F20101124_AABSPV taylor_k_Page_42.tif
e394a5ad5fad1278b8038cf9e1c831f6
d11ff9083faada54a04c02f1ad42a9dea275bf8f
F20101124_AABSQJ taylor_k_Page_69.tif
b68b16fb2c42b998f1b0f39dae970438
120d60762bccc9f8062385d346bc15c09e8ecfb2
F20101124_AABSPW taylor_k_Page_46.tif
2bbee37bbbb1e2d6c44b22218c70d64c
53aec683907bb682736a86ce1dd7eefa9974e37c
F20101124_AABSQK taylor_k_Page_70.tif
62d95408956a5de9ba0983dedba86d27
8d5e62ab6f0659f792dfc8a2908ac95cbe624a92
F20101124_AABSPX taylor_k_Page_47.tif
52f4de2ec5d36c423381d9c651d48748
693b453be78fb2091ca64be38603c300cd8a3383
4175 F20101124_AABSRA taylor_k_Page_02.pro
0401847fa5c3c1f40c42da543139161e
44387df652cd3d1b36ccdf43fbe28824cbd5a99a
F20101124_AABSQL taylor_k_Page_71.tif
e691720be3cc2a583bf1fdc66d3e8652
4d12cdd4025e64928e71e9fca66707cf3b436db7
F20101124_AABSPY taylor_k_Page_50.tif
e38ad848f476486339141c265ffa338b
0e4cc27a74d68bb5a4f949dfcd2758986b9caf3b
30387 F20101124_AABSRB taylor_k_Page_03.pro
00eb4bbcd229df1ccb8fa787509e5ebb
10ca1244414e3f5560982022d7316c994e54a1c0
F20101124_AABSQM taylor_k_Page_72.tif
d383056e268f5d2f7ad9b28ce867b516
d62f216d4a9136e806142487d5905cbc10478c1f
F20101124_AABSPZ taylor_k_Page_51.tif
951ae565e8d06263c1f557cea248d40a
cae2297908ab54ce3eb754c86653218ed0328bd9
81573 F20101124_AABSRC taylor_k_Page_04.pro
1bcbad1c889c0d6e77e5f025b7074b4f
0356719bce4180869517fb5573b81a12bff3998d
F20101124_AABSQN taylor_k_Page_73.tif
e9c69a38ef0a7eeca5096f3a0c18102f
52a5c10984c1f44792102d12aeac2cfd51f63102
122922 F20101124_AABSRD taylor_k_Page_05.pro
6865ed44891969c69270b070e2b8b695
3aaa8b341da20b2552dd5408b0cc9039c2663366
F20101124_AABSQO taylor_k_Page_77.tif
1182f4105e7a250b6bfe8eeac83092d3
ab2d1625e9793f2d418999eb88373301f02627e7
12176 F20101124_AABSRE taylor_k_Page_06.pro
2a54277ec75597d38171c185d9997c9b
046182b66b6817b94a9b039b6fad5d567dfe1dea
F20101124_AABSQP taylor_k_Page_78.tif
e2c324e6bc8262349bd3b1c7884c0f72
95f4d598322d55e212ee64757e659eaf95a8e813
22471 F20101124_AABSRF taylor_k_Page_08.pro
33444cc30d6de29fc8df62517031269c
19e7dc802d79d63b495a97e25010b794e18fbe14
F20101124_AABSQQ taylor_k_Page_79.tif
67cd1be6bfcc4379ae5ab4f5e81974c3
f99f0a84008261df1a9f32703e764607c07c0f44
F20101124_AABSQR taylor_k_Page_80.tif
8a4b784c5e892240d26a8645dda1218b
218a6db46665c4787db143075df0e3fa5ead9bf1
51421 F20101124_AABSRG taylor_k_Page_10.pro
4abab58e927f738641424144e417f70d
602193fe68a5c1c5eabc10c43434c2f2362141d5
F20101124_AABSQS taylor_k_Page_82.tif
3c1c38a891b25730d648c686a1f5690b
91838679fa7e0f733d81c1feeb622026bd046d40
9664 F20101124_AABSRH taylor_k_Page_13.pro
ac721cd7df230942956a90b861c75e9e
090293a6641457543f7c5faed6c56638754ce80f
F20101124_AABSQT taylor_k_Page_83.tif
935a2dd9b78102782373c23c6d36f948
9d92c80ac94928c1b6011cad0ae219470c156f1a
52956 F20101124_AABSRI taylor_k_Page_15.pro
84ba90b57cb85a77f0ef543766b06340
15448f7a3503fcfb5a1f6b0aa61ae28b166f734f
F20101124_AABSQU taylor_k_Page_85.tif
834d99e29c021605432f68c0fb48944d
20ce883946a92e5b4ff385f592f98fff5be30bd3
46891 F20101124_AABSRJ taylor_k_Page_16.pro
10daaafdd81f7346dafe5070b217f9b9
4937c70fb4542a02a9aea4fa548f87ab01b94351
F20101124_AABSQV taylor_k_Page_86.tif
23cbaafc24c0159f8c3762b6049cda39
e05fb07a04f0887a683f103bca052403b014f1f3
63457 F20101124_AABSRK taylor_k_Page_17.pro
8c9bcfcc15b0627787d4fde516d95671
974db1d309f038e78e0f5f4642d13b217f5b1a2f
8423998 F20101124_AABSQW taylor_k_Page_87.tif
47d3b9d916c469d1e1be8af94dd14b60
20b5b42254b3424339f5a19157fb4c8e0c8d44b9
45512 F20101124_AABSSA taylor_k_Page_41.pro
de69bed2226e038153dc39d5bfafb9d4
85a0dbe5cfd17df11f6db80d3923297156a11724
47600 F20101124_AABSRL taylor_k_Page_18.pro
01545f068f265722c3752f1698770b1a
cc1c8a0ae34d1dd44351c6297353119b9b3d0f8d
F20101124_AABSQX taylor_k_Page_88.tif
14ee39790cef0e1f60de2604f1099786
c2c0db5b971a82ba97f22a0f7c0ded3d6a226fd2
47088 F20101124_AABSSB taylor_k_Page_42.pro
d43ce0ecc4aa8c87c37af945d0351fd2
2617f2e72ee8a52e23aa0e2f79bb98ab33e43498
55390 F20101124_AABSRM taylor_k_Page_19.pro
87faee9a5fca9c7965ef599115c17b07
3d4fb769a83ac209bb6e6ec73c46743bd5a2eb21
F20101124_AABSQY taylor_k_Page_89.tif
2642cd078cc0e126f1758839aa401f80
64dbae851d09ba27a9668056665638768bfa3552
48601 F20101124_AABSSC taylor_k_Page_43.pro
2e8eae1e98c742161ef46a099bd50319
b83532b3901bb262285fa257dc634f38faf4bdb0
52370 F20101124_AABSRN taylor_k_Page_20.pro
48424eec350c29e4663388c327471a08
691dbaa3ddd4296df8c37cbfd38f2f518afc9137
F20101124_AABSQZ taylor_k_Page_90.tif
68432371c02122fd7d5aa85533a81ae8
5dd7009147799a466fea402f40ed492fec978850
36266 F20101124_AABSSD taylor_k_Page_44.pro
839cc782f1780a830004403c249fc0d3
4ec3a1d6d4ddead42402395c39ed7313993598f7
51492 F20101124_AABSRO taylor_k_Page_23.pro
e3927f19d6bdb8ed6e2d57d6db0c686c
c0f59f3616c9619bd2ae2f91654ed78b4cfdea1e
37631 F20101124_AABSSE taylor_k_Page_45.pro
3f4a7eae5e7ddbc91d3c4d3807ed3f7f
6c88c89edf35894c2865d3ec38cda670be3a41a9
65074 F20101124_AABSRP taylor_k_Page_24.pro
0c44e2efcfa3f3ddf7e5b3a16c7aac83
fcbd2c05c5de3e59c73753394572a8f8c7f12614
50799 F20101124_AABSSF taylor_k_Page_46.pro
095554087faabf259437df7484696069
9eef0c793e6bd19f1fff90358bcc75babcd31c2f
49051 F20101124_AABSRQ taylor_k_Page_26.pro
750d4c088a48de947c52fc72956d4f1b
e2ea1efdf19d29b2eac1922cc9db50bb33647d39
49834 F20101124_AABSSG taylor_k_Page_48.pro
3da17b09a7ed7beacc3447cbbd3d73bc
6b1078c2f3140a3ea0c0d463d3cb005ec965846a
46491 F20101124_AABSRR taylor_k_Page_27.pro
7c69d252d2ca3c7dae88c525026dd55f
f7c54452452cc9f885fcc2f36c6d95dd471bb4bc
51843 F20101124_AABSRS taylor_k_Page_30.pro
b7d42b11c10055e050cff55b70dffa0f
b7f66d4e975403b670d759bb3ce7d34281ff1dff
51249 F20101124_AABSSH taylor_k_Page_49.pro
4d81d229b8267e7fccade0330be866fe
2e4b768a815cd4c63963e5c5a8f7d31b77aa595d
37087 F20101124_AABSRT taylor_k_Page_31.pro
a5a11c8c9c7a95c75dde61c4d2655b5b
4138706f805ee46d8d4b5da480ddf38f5997a123
51180 F20101124_AABSSI taylor_k_Page_51.pro
a4539c0778dd96838fc7171eea141173
190582f7573e87986a26360312a9d2ba5d4a9cdc
53435 F20101124_AABSRU taylor_k_Page_32.pro
7bb56adafce9aa759c85bd8939628ecd
98fb48d5515e01ca6e36d7bf8ac2be1a3e183add
50278 F20101124_AABSSJ taylor_k_Page_53.pro
27a362982db98f35ae3d4a7e4a7da33b
dba34729db6c36c433b78c5236512e334128b555
50500 F20101124_AABSRV taylor_k_Page_33.pro
593b0d0333cc22c5918350e9616b17a7
3d9fe6e176b9e8ab5fead39c4c52ccc3aa651e15
42267 F20101124_AABSSK taylor_k_Page_55.pro
a76b8c71950772a59cca5dba85bd463a
359af66a4adc7e62cfa75ad7dba1fa025bf3d6b4
48654 F20101124_AABSRW taylor_k_Page_34.pro
65ccde626382d2a63f7a60e791dc145b
72a9f575879f8231f399ae7af794105576f2dea0
44001 F20101124_AABSSL taylor_k_Page_56.pro
01036e9cb75eb6d66b24691b83cc85c3
4f2a34d655da26293ea1c23468bace7f8c5ccd1b
55792 F20101124_AABSRX taylor_k_Page_35.pro
863334c9ee3dee57ba4a8a82e1db8750
453bbf2ec6f302e0f8938fd19e57b1d9010be20a
56414 F20101124_AABSTA taylor_k_Page_86.pro
63bd0604b5483be64da37b1e663fae83
ff1d26530dbaadb32e3167338f8df1cb2eb8304f
43874 F20101124_AABSSM taylor_k_Page_57.pro
680e98af933ecfb93a656033e2bc13e0
28026c4293f288b367e45d2909309dc4e408a684
49346 F20101124_AABSRY taylor_k_Page_37.pro
d5607d126051ec305c79f06d9a61ee69
96812b8a0b12927ea34025850ac7c851e1ecfdbc
57159 F20101124_AABSTB taylor_k_Page_87.pro
e0dbcc361c32997a5155971806440c78
29b60fd99711337573ad666aa9382715867ed75b
50251 F20101124_AABSSN taylor_k_Page_58.pro
48ec20b89706e45e1b4455ad54d62ca0
4732440097d50fc04771d35d55b97625e67aebe4
42633 F20101124_AABSRZ taylor_k_Page_39.pro
93c7f54715c4e5dde774b63d63c069be
e44b415f5adb9f32f9ad45702ba416c4cd4e7836
59308 F20101124_AABSTC taylor_k_Page_88.pro
799c66d51c4cd3ec5b76b05e6674101a
767276850b3663ae25e1bae63d3ed04a91e718b8
51381 F20101124_AABSSO taylor_k_Page_62.pro
e1908232f8fcddb9a0783870c5d976f2
34959551579eb9b46befc2c25c2b3c36c01e1bcd
439 F20101124_AABSTD taylor_k_Page_01.txt
52f290c182324a92a0c0e670c027500d
f5f5656259d2f64d751943f01744cb5b41710cba
40772 F20101124_AABSSP taylor_k_Page_65.pro
3357fbf35419088efea6dfacfccbf2e3
606682b40e503c6cb6ea31dbd903b71aacaef0cc
222 F20101124_AABSTE taylor_k_Page_02.txt
adf677c22fc6249bb7e84e3c4ba88e99
e007d2929c8be877e5a4039d4c1b0fcdc68a1a7c
50760 F20101124_AABSSQ taylor_k_Page_68.pro
269196ecece0f9c1223282bcd57546a8
e8c0504a5d607e7b77ffe9bb706ff8dc6fae4556
1277 F20101124_AABSTF taylor_k_Page_03.txt
c36b734c1b7815a347e7ec8ec34054bb
d51f3ebbb12e0e7aa7e13096091499714a0c4907
52507 F20101124_AABSSR taylor_k_Page_74.pro
4f7bbd0395edcfc1cc8e42fe94f83552
81b438c30b90d86d3db1bdfad673c6317e1bee9d
3387 F20101124_AABSTG taylor_k_Page_04.txt
c12188146468275c4880c7da434962d9
9dea75910773c3da147c04be482360e8ea0dcc10
43350 F20101124_AABSSS taylor_k_Page_75.pro
d7ede19480b740b7ff9d2f8134f8d4f7
f07d64a27501977ac35b3bee46b9b90c1a4e1665
5013 F20101124_AABSTH taylor_k_Page_05.txt
d5df73aadb1d9452ca47ad07e675ea7c
23410f93484905ecb2aae2d3591f39b47c234922
25926 F20101124_AABSST taylor_k_Page_76.pro
04eb3cbc0cba270d71e3d84b4cd27835
cb1a2fe1003e398f9b8467529dc067f534a61152
22956 F20101124_AABSSU taylor_k_Page_77.pro
67dfbff25c1a9b8d68029f2f7978423b
e071b84b9bcbb61cbf738658f7dfd850ec567fce
465 F20101124_AABSTI taylor_k_Page_06.txt
d5e4ebec90bb25cbb02542bfa09c6de1
6c19053de1b45049fbfdddcb3f84379ea0795e81
54882 F20101124_AABSSV taylor_k_Page_78.pro
b20f887adc0e2c54a098c19344638eba
28a9be958bb6384ba1492374b7417aa11e0edf8d
1134 F20101124_AABSTJ taylor_k_Page_07.txt
eb6f83fce84cf4a587204472dd9215ec
460b299d8ff15b7a82e277876a8360ebb7346b98
69491 F20101124_AABSSW taylor_k_Page_79.pro
2a3047e09aeffdddf287fae98b738454
1705da48cd27b445dd97b893296f7e20fea3778a
2111 F20101124_AABSTK taylor_k_Page_11.txt
ae8cb84a467404c2b3a3a28f0baa0e2c
809b2c625543738af6d486bd5a5a6af785664838
68470 F20101124_AABSSX taylor_k_Page_81.pro
51b1fac42a2925f71fd42abbf41ff949
9c3970a99d6070410b15fbec3a6c424868460679
1927 F20101124_AABSUA taylor_k_Page_43.txt
2a6369e0d5f1c8b63a49f0c6947e40bc
8fe1007e1f322332f8bb2ed724885425a8f550ff
2095 F20101124_AABSTL taylor_k_Page_12.txt
a9b9d9c23b8d2c60688330db50dd4e5d
3dafea52f4b47902234ad6f77915cdb48c89e3b7
47632 F20101124_AABSSY taylor_k_Page_83.pro
933bb55668d521e51a897d0647fd30d2
3c0a186494fa9f059d5d3921991e6fc5feecdb97
2125 F20101124_AABSUB taylor_k_Page_46.txt
7908e4b25ca45b22b7b5fc7357bd302c
b533cdf1a71cfa73bf8ec5e3ca62a51c6d1e6d64
428 F20101124_AABSTM taylor_k_Page_13.txt
edcf5011fb27f7ad9a15bb862b41af52
53ca257fc179f191227ac81a294fb143a249ea69
2013 F20101124_AABSUC taylor_k_Page_49.txt
5ca2e3c1f666f0aa65d577aefff1ccc5
46c6ed15c2840a2b920ff236ff72cba07fa0128b
2546 F20101124_AABSTN taylor_k_Page_17.txt
e8a9b2e3dd6f2ea81925d1e5e23837fb
eb562465d2230e55b8d2ef337fefc8c9abcdbad7
55601 F20101124_AABSSZ taylor_k_Page_84.pro
2834bcc8ec90b48865d039c74208e21a
dc758a441ad0e042905d7a71d96ebdc5853d5f61
1729 F20101124_AABSUD taylor_k_Page_52.txt
e59074bbfff4e1897640a5f55086edc6
9d53f2f772fcd6e2ba0dafb67e8b51bf8bc13b13
1915 F20101124_AABSTO taylor_k_Page_18.txt
6b5fcba7ccb6cae624554db199eef4cb
32b87fbe17171cb5cdd2686b8121f91cf3d0178f
1763 F20101124_AABSUE taylor_k_Page_54.txt
1693fee29c2135d436fb5b5b01176c13
55497907271bc106ef3dd60720ee265bb33d1888
1859 F20101124_AABSTP taylor_k_Page_22.txt
f7284ddec6cdd0a57cca4c7040154ba4
bd96a53734109fdc6adb35bb8f2fab2206c64ccc
1750 F20101124_AABSUF taylor_k_Page_56.txt
72ec11a464632f32dc12b2c2ab65afc2
09e1971c911378c09b963e73a68ade323ccd01aa
2036 F20101124_AABSTQ taylor_k_Page_23.txt
ee282c1614186f23fc1ad92c4240c2ee
40b12f86a8efe4672b576bf5f09598f403707d33
2120 F20101124_AABSUG taylor_k_Page_58.txt
13384a9238fa5f0a41f7288aa3b576d1
fcf55e63cbc78aeee6ce2623675dcab9121cd13c
1898 F20101124_AABSTR taylor_k_Page_25.txt
a8ea3bc8d3fb2a8460dec20c2339d68a
64564d6efbd31b1db1553428befd90fd50d0887e
2099 F20101124_AABSUH taylor_k_Page_62.txt
49a9fc2e036c247d6d016559db538509
07f23f000cb72c7d1270584832b2a5d8b53150ef
1887 F20101124_AABSTS taylor_k_Page_27.txt
5f7cad9f4b1f67cfe8f1fffca5df6842
9e9eac8ffc5f42449596cfb97f37c1264314ff72
1918 F20101124_AABSUI taylor_k_Page_63.txt
36196c9398d944e24b42d6a4391ecac4
71b87a2abc38c0f2ff75923763e8d00be4f40862
2034 F20101124_AABSTT taylor_k_Page_28.txt
f1f8644aa8553b98c7af37e6766a2c57
216d2ef3990e886fc4748452527c8214d375751e
2056 F20101124_AABSTU taylor_k_Page_29.txt
6fc0a0ea52d8c04b26a2b4fcca66920f
933c952e1d701369608f253eea47997739cb865c
2010 F20101124_AABSUJ taylor_k_Page_67.txt
a4e51cdcbc075cb6ad67b7bbbfe72765
44061993896b49335d97af8300fb3edfc3154cd6
1506 F20101124_AABSTV taylor_k_Page_31.txt
1bee053ee1bb366675203c9b79b1c5b3
43fce796652f88027826b9b0404f19ec1e27843f
1998 F20101124_AABSUK taylor_k_Page_68.txt
ddcb72e1ad561dc3a6338160383784df
1c8a40e87ea35050d0f57c165f828fe40f7373ad
2033 F20101124_AABSTW taylor_k_Page_33.txt
bc41b63377da650339aabee32873a253
fdfdc84a80757925a07973688b6cea38e8bf6c0a
1901 F20101124_AABSUL taylor_k_Page_71.txt
1b217b979d94f87eb559d620a3ecf94b
b0b55b32349e4c1c64d26457b5c8c2d8d7d4970f
1950 F20101124_AABSTX taylor_k_Page_34.txt
6e296b2ec4f5d10fdc1953cd0ad0cec9
73d854a223298ef271065dd7b81dd575621a178d
15754 F20101124_AABSVA taylor_k_Page_03.QC.jpg
b0dddb922a016b676abcdfc8b135917f
75004481348f9f6ad06a5ca1ca83921e88314838
2079 F20101124_AABSUM taylor_k_Page_72.txt
efb5f8dcd30ba67406aa8ab78c68c7f0
a78e721b0faa6d4b29c861c779ef15a8a9101e39
1139 F20101124_AABSTY taylor_k_Page_38.txt
2b31f78b94d7dd0be6e8e96fae4c9279
fe91537bf56b6220377ef1f6011b64126870cfa4
4864 F20101124_AABSVB taylor_k_Page_03thm.jpg
1600894d6235ba7af644b670a33a2752
3c75ec335ec3f0bd8aacbddf95bfbfd3bb867ed8
F20101124_AABSUN taylor_k_Page_73.txt
3e4dc6c18479210b850385e75a86008a
a00cf52a90a23db80aa8d27c26f15d89d6988722
1866 F20101124_AABSTZ taylor_k_Page_42.txt
530f2ccdb854e259dc1961944983e629
83d27bd79cf6e6eaa40f05449e245f407746d2ce
4694 F20101124_AABSVC taylor_k_Page_04thm.jpg
dbff9f2bf746c86adb6cd01beaf7feaa
db232f8fa068a2072dad94ee01618807e026c878
F20101124_AABSUO taylor_k_Page_74.txt
0d575e9b669f0f175119e631faf7fcb5
42a5bbba6a0c94871c8fc37d83275d869fa9496b
23929 F20101124_AABSVD taylor_k_Page_05.QC.jpg
97da0910ea4b7c51686bc9c2216396d3
bdc0932135da595d1692d2bf8c90bcbfec6b6a3c
1728 F20101124_AABSUP taylor_k_Page_75.txt
9a0fd16dc13e54f2402d825cca540d5f
7e78ab6e1388b95c9c679563ccc9a756a669d72d
5677 F20101124_AABSVE taylor_k_Page_05thm.jpg
21f33cb6675031f1eb73b1764b21a1d2
4ce0203693f1427ae66be9f15c122823479f9ca4
1156 F20101124_AABSUQ taylor_k_Page_76.txt
c800f22217d1d231dac0b3835059c06a
43d70a95d83a257e57006a533cba3c789c34fc3a
5737 F20101124_AABSVF taylor_k_Page_06.QC.jpg
e2fd150807f2e2f8a9d42791ee594ea7
ba6d73ce13cc6498a85363ad1d441820272a9d13
938 F20101124_AABSUR taylor_k_Page_77.txt
779d300d4b512e783fcfccdb033c6ba1
d182c4d3e67557db0241c7c99b011e99798cc7ad
2085 F20101124_AABSVG taylor_k_Page_06thm.jpg
62ede0ec5a446088883d41e4e08c7c28
3291772411e65298a65dc32682f9b4193be5b257
2294 F20101124_AABSUS taylor_k_Page_78.txt
ded81ac7702c5da317efe2cd88d9c283
d2711b55594b8d77288d4171fa305151a7cbf3ce
9108 F20101124_AABSVH taylor_k_Page_07.QC.jpg
3b100f1484a750c4c12f8dca8978f783
54d919562aad3f91d652bd3ff079d2ddf1a058d7
2813 F20101124_AABSUT taylor_k_Page_79.txt
ac7430fadde298d11c43ba3fa4acbbe1
9f9c4d4f8688ea5747d50f665cb087b7e8eb003d
2832 F20101124_AABSVI taylor_k_Page_07thm.jpg
75ac43b0bf389b7c8b9619c58f19649c
a2b0af648c8923df1d9665b7d93d823d3990ee4f
2831 F20101124_AABSUU taylor_k_Page_80.txt
ec720e703589089138db384db7fa7285
bd8782e07de3dc021667b06691e76099aba27374
12111 F20101124_AABSVJ taylor_k_Page_08.QC.jpg
75eeb34cfe06b6d6f1fdb14e91a90ebd
cbd85ba1126c681026b93eed3bd4e70d79857276
963 F20101124_AABSUV taylor_k_Page_82.txt
2fdbd8a0fb2d2d9278541fb2dbe1bf81
6644acb6bbbba927a0fc03438808d1f8b8d23d4d
1940 F20101124_AABSUW taylor_k_Page_83.txt
0c8ef3c606449bb9f0a8cde83f6998dd
be416a5a9777d082b9d08476b6dbcad41847908a
3670 F20101124_AABSVK taylor_k_Page_08thm.jpg
5715997a77aebdbfba95168bfa1bc214
f30a12eb250e89a01018092500ba68daead55196
2313 F20101124_AABSUX taylor_k_Page_86.txt
b320e6c1e4924f0b8b1f677e67fca86f
673eaf33150e8869f4fd8bc177fe2b9ad3a8bcb7
25040 F20101124_AABSWA taylor_k_Page_24.QC.jpg
20901bb56cff2785b1b55a7387b3d59e
40b8d548f57e3ced0287c55c598dea9dbb01928d
20061 F20101124_AABSVL taylor_k_Page_09.QC.jpg
9f9f861968899b9aae8aab0cebd66fb4
093cfab2f323609959f1eb45b5b37aae3722c69f
2200 F20101124_AABSUY taylor_k_Page_89.txt
5ac76f0c9eea9d2dc7e44716cc169ec4
3265cd56a000b2cdc87b95b32aec5bece463dd67
22647 F20101124_AABSWB taylor_k_Page_25.QC.jpg
78758f4c727615f32b3e196e70193fc1
a413d23ef8c0771c3cfb376c9644886f8a18c614
6643 F20101124_AABSVM taylor_k_Page_10thm.jpg
167955dc14ac153a72fc98cefba575f4
11e36fdd764dc93bd0242fb0ab2e67e2328b1250
1569 F20101124_AABSUZ taylor_k_Page_91.txt
274ac8979f6cd5d07194ba3dd46e0366
b50bbedeb1f294e88f85ce21cc170aaee1276f96
6186 F20101124_AABSWC taylor_k_Page_26thm.jpg
06e27902cc98c140fee5dea638691ff5
aa6fc2e42d79e80720aac6925c21c4e452c074b7
23904 F20101124_AABSVN taylor_k_Page_12.QC.jpg
42ad1423403b418d51b43ff710a86096
6b8acf2e338c9772f6eca6507d2715db2fbc51fe
6159 F20101124_AABSWD taylor_k_Page_27thm.jpg
65085b0811b396b9b98277ca5d387693
6d8a8bb156af75e6a3db36a5c77e71424848e7cc
18607 F20101124_AABSVO taylor_k_Page_14.QC.jpg
6a9942bca8beeddc732a48d279613057
611bd2b9cd528413759b52919b5b3b99e0def29d
6717 F20101124_AABSWE taylor_k_Page_28thm.jpg
bb5e9655a188d8b20641df03053b58bb
a7a9491cc2740dc23f2aff2118b77da7e1d1d9d1
22409 F20101124_AABSVP taylor_k_Page_16.QC.jpg
80e33fa06e1e8d87efbe69c1a6961117
00c2bd3f9436f7b68e34ce5257f5f770d7bd8ede
6429 F20101124_AABSWF taylor_k_Page_29thm.jpg
39a1a8f4ff1f04f9bcd99f7904ead18a
569b15ac4188307d598690c2df6e53aae0fbea28
6233 F20101124_AABSVQ taylor_k_Page_16thm.jpg
3f58a07776afe88a113cb10126d80513
dae38dd0615d18465699408d0a2473e909833357
23261 F20101124_AABSWG taylor_k_Page_30.QC.jpg
f0daf7b4bb1067476165dea003f5d6ab
b4f1601a6b7b3f860316e3bec099f0d04af72d81
22478 F20101124_AABSVR taylor_k_Page_18.QC.jpg
8818a2ff7812f8498297b68c5c7c5830
cbdff4f63dce74303cfe6c04621ceda101db0720
24142 F20101124_AABSWH taylor_k_Page_32.QC.jpg
a779a50f5b5dcef4a55532218360bf2f
0d27866ec0399cbbdaf8da86654d0c7ff276830e
24509 F20101124_AABSVS taylor_k_Page_19.QC.jpg
445d40279d4c9a0d40d0952053d2e8c5
720e280f744fe40f371a56ed8630d179e3632a1b
6710 F20101124_AABSWI taylor_k_Page_32thm.jpg
601b8d78ebf39d5b94420eb7f0673699
a7f4a4f43630a0751f22177527efc47d9af27859
6471 F20101124_AABSVT taylor_k_Page_19thm.jpg
b338920c5c66cb571e7a86dbb29981c7
35d1c15eb49f69d14c77c5617ef32a6f76f2611e
23020 F20101124_AABSWJ taylor_k_Page_33.QC.jpg
09db1506b79de8582a92aa41e7e65ce5
9e5d29b5bacd8c744a5727fe6032a2da39728e17
6432 F20101124_AABSVU taylor_k_Page_20thm.jpg
f4c128508de034b960a9396220f69c99
9b10f3cabdf69f64e8bd098d3032228af0c1f3d5
6369 F20101124_AABSWK taylor_k_Page_33thm.jpg
35c02c15e3e4b1599dbde43c2685e8a5
4c2b14e7b360d02dd62ff05ac2883651b44959d0
23578 F20101124_AABSVV taylor_k_Page_21.QC.jpg
e62d17de4ef8d30c75c1ea726cefb6af
76ad48051048d41f166297c5927a09559e9fee4d
22364 F20101124_AABSVW taylor_k_Page_22.QC.jpg
f9c95fa3c440da6a4f3c778dd5c3f12c
39e718c94ae24507315295f0b64925877b3b67b0
23992 F20101124_AABSXA taylor_k_Page_47.QC.jpg
bd813a9abf6446fdfaaadd6ee108e601
3e6a1876a4d2428094fb7f6fdfb9ab8e5aefc078
6459 F20101124_AABSWL taylor_k_Page_35thm.jpg
2d77be3274aadcc6b23692487e2a0c91
b0758562eec696ac4de76e45b8c49fea4ff73c56
6024 F20101124_AABSVX taylor_k_Page_22thm.jpg
8bb62e97e8d44d33a793b0f032cd1ea6
f8e94e7a73b088f235bf7239924f7df19ceb44ae
6410 F20101124_AABSXB taylor_k_Page_47thm.jpg
8c4141f9a8d32c3d47d8c96ed7b707ed
7700635369fb68e1024ca85677fd76271a98a368
22921 F20101124_AABSWM taylor_k_Page_36.QC.jpg
b29362dbe5c65c4621978193081155c1
5f266ab03f56ed5258be84d73813b952e7d4de6a
23722 F20101124_AABSVY taylor_k_Page_23.QC.jpg
cb2de6a6aedd144b5cde05e5bbae1f32
301e0df134388d6573b159cb72cde784780bc3d7
22315 F20101124_AABSXC taylor_k_Page_48.QC.jpg
f5f931ee6f657be4767775119f137f16
89835f0a475ea56da718651e13317f32356b5cda
22648 F20101124_AABSWN taylor_k_Page_37.QC.jpg
87f0b1f72368c9dc4da2ecc36c8939f8
82ece859b42788e602e21c7aebffa6f3000d20db
6609 F20101124_AABSVZ taylor_k_Page_23thm.jpg
bc53c556973c377598fd23bbdc604977
ab505c7d60e10ab3ae3c37ebc3dd02b5b4ba5087
6315 F20101124_AABSXD taylor_k_Page_48thm.jpg
3d7224c36a958a43f40ddadfeb9f2c13
fb60ef0ca71f8fbfbdc8d21d222345c87e91eef2
5479 F20101124_AABSWO taylor_k_Page_39thm.jpg
bc707ef00117968108ebc6a5d348f62e
0549fccea06d51d9fa25c93a75b87ad39f667168
23774 F20101124_AABSXE taylor_k_Page_49.QC.jpg
edb27f82304cbd60991f8a3008771ddd
00e789f689e9a265b8a3d1cb1338385620fb2736
20949 F20101124_AABSWP taylor_k_Page_40.QC.jpg
55b1b2f038b8dd8fd1cf64d409c6aa91
0a573b642f584e5d1dbddd469b16e27e9cb70912
6362 F20101124_AABSXF taylor_k_Page_50thm.jpg
98154ef886aadf5360e44f3bb4996f28
a714ea9a93ecfa47d1ca7cd3b6b7de3768899c8b
5968 F20101124_AABSWQ taylor_k_Page_40thm.jpg
db993e4fe5232eeedf7ea185d51a9677
51a3b33204201dec41d6e532dd173d48475f66cf
23435 F20101124_AABSXG taylor_k_Page_51.QC.jpg
ec446f32749f43d5cf3d5e6e1656b4bd
ade4d726479c638d38a2e33daaab42599a7c5d76
21122 F20101124_AABSWR taylor_k_Page_41.QC.jpg
4a807c17356464c2eab8bd72da966b13
cc8faea34e1230dba3a3032d9eca9436b046f01b
20421 F20101124_AABSXH taylor_k_Page_52.QC.jpg
0b7f6c1aab75dbd8c7589022db2c31e4
e135568accaf1bf356960b22c7459c32e9791a80
6059 F20101124_AABSWS taylor_k_Page_41thm.jpg
14febcfff370b49e9dc58057a3bae7b1
8a253d1c046ba18cf6875cafaddebe180a877b6d
5943 F20101124_AABSXI taylor_k_Page_52thm.jpg
38965518db1078582127d908861d7bb2
89f20fdaf38c9f45e4be43a32b36a38a49f56b5f
21749 F20101124_AABSWT taylor_k_Page_42.QC.jpg
6bc8311b94f53e88bd5d6a693b4d88a0
b79af498586bda5fd29610a7e762b149e6e25f93
22747 F20101124_AABSXJ taylor_k_Page_53.QC.jpg
80762fee67ea47d78917c04c39fd6b2e
7cbd62d30fa25f93614b07a2756f606e55957643
6167 F20101124_AABSWU taylor_k_Page_42thm.jpg
e6164e421e4025f60907e655ca088461
5aacdf818586f3d5817c8f1995141a805e69e412
6174 F20101124_AABSXK taylor_k_Page_54thm.jpg
e63e4daedb6b5cf43b5fd1e8797143ee
cd654b44d3ab1687c515b0f9d907d0bfb63a0d1e
17652 F20101124_AABSWV taylor_k_Page_44.QC.jpg
0fe3de2343e274deaecd3f82d54873b3
0e683e559b35fae0cec587fab50d4f55ca4f7d05
22280 F20101124_AABSXL taylor_k_Page_56.QC.jpg
05f1f22309ccceb98af6ed9cf717c878
43227d75e74ee61135b9cf54d5a7c02b72672748
4996 F20101124_AABSWW taylor_k_Page_44thm.jpg
42bcb95991c35d8ef01a5863de42b162
ed0be70cce4adad4d1fcb5da534d5ef76df29fa7
17055 F20101124_AABSWX taylor_k_Page_45.QC.jpg
0c225f30d572e5665ddab43c879a9fb6
b90b9c1e50c8343e26737b0d2fee97dab6a42e6d
6681 F20101124_AABSYA taylor_k_Page_66thm.jpg
daa84171b4396184408fa5a3df94db5d
aa19f3672fd16168ed65850d902d05e9b2db7f5d
21802 F20101124_AABSXM taylor_k_Page_58.QC.jpg
a3670c13c7415f9a2a1f842dd9bf1bd1
d58c65c0afe357974ffdc33322d89cf52352cdef
4943 F20101124_AABSWY taylor_k_Page_45thm.jpg
6a528c74cb6877c68b20e7a18cde130a
2f36b3f63386d0ba5a7f0c0b3ba39fc4b444a764
23493 F20101124_AABSYB taylor_k_Page_67.QC.jpg
bd49362d20e713b48a5d0e3275c200d9
26d9079f9f7f1db2f5708cee7e488d93024f212a
6196 F20101124_AABSXN taylor_k_Page_58thm.jpg
95b8c5b35e3090146df75a0689191b43
784694c5fea689be10c2e833516c03f0531df3a9
6205 F20101124_AABSWZ taylor_k_Page_46thm.jpg
9c1eb3d0f6ff6dfd751185b6d93a63ba
2220cb28705091cbf3a6d953706b2688b9489285
6538 F20101124_AABSYC taylor_k_Page_67thm.jpg
c832426959fe720af3f3854458271778
a713cc94a516e308d98b3299a589d8f88126f9d1
22702 F20101124_AABSXO taylor_k_Page_59.QC.jpg
f27b9004aa32db537aa81d22f82ebfae
71607c65fc80a05bd97f754c99fcbd0edc73cbd5
23409 F20101124_AABSYD taylor_k_Page_69.QC.jpg
4ffe07b4351ca7b5a3e90ab617640454
241e2579af5993aad48355a87417f52eb565fdc7
6368 F20101124_AABSXP taylor_k_Page_59thm.jpg
67753b1dc8cce2f88d0b10997449c277
a04348083538132e071833a70ff583872af67887
6567 F20101124_AABSYE taylor_k_Page_69thm.jpg
3eb3a37ee60040bb0dbcc75854d53495
b3f7d938792a2c037e15e8c4655c99bf19645e45
20204 F20101124_AABSXQ taylor_k_Page_60.QC.jpg
9f80c55cfad230e33c1773d9e587b825
512865ebd50c45bd257d5e15eb215d62b6770760
6422 F20101124_AABSYF taylor_k_Page_70thm.jpg
c5085b460fa7c062f99cf5f1769bc205
392977485c927cfa8f9f1b257a04e73cdfba14ec
20609 F20101124_AABSXR taylor_k_Page_61.QC.jpg
323dba1a55e114e5eee235c204c0997f
0655d208b4ce538cf5acceb2fa8681ed84c47d86
70849 F20101124_AABSAK taylor_k_Page_21.jpg
c78c27c5ebfa7f26b93ae761f9d18a40
d2017f24d8579e2bc2f2615f736a0561a6d6a41b
22751 F20101124_AABSYG taylor_k_Page_71.QC.jpg
d0920ee152ed0ef05ea8c101fe40b665
86ea3fb11962c57799756fb9040734c7abb3cb06
22642 F20101124_AABSXS taylor_k_Page_62.QC.jpg
a3b4b8d916f19f1a96c7497164d5873a
2dca78f441ac405d048329b6f72808def18a6145
F20101124_AABSAL taylor_k_Page_30.tif
9c029156b94bdf266e60f070d22ef958
a29a36aeaec01f260340d2aa4031a71ea0cebb13
6086 F20101124_AABSYH taylor_k_Page_71thm.jpg
38886eef384e7bd92103fec62eab6d65
f0f5154a99a12ea413d7c307c52c476253c2f181
6376 F20101124_AABSXT taylor_k_Page_62thm.jpg
8566ea7a42c02eaee730446da2a22eb0
aa0693a240d4a960cf75d8360444e2d7842898eb
22803 F20101124_AABSBA taylor_k_Page_72.QC.jpg
b4aea00d4fbf2e262128d81fee68fc1c
de01aebae7ce38e6a8716737afe000f74075674b
F20101124_AABSAM taylor_k_Page_52.tif
a4aeaf18713e18dc39eb144be66cdf49
201c5e521f8b8d8e0d251d9bcd25b5a2ded1bbb0
F20101124_AABSYI taylor_k_Page_73.QC.jpg
6d6c7f79280d6ae31a2bb5a4f1f5367d
18ce8cf505831a0c7c75f34d87c1f9c71070bff0
21976 F20101124_AABSXU taylor_k_Page_63.QC.jpg
bf6f07e0cbc2ae32d42d6724ed9e6c9e
4d92e483b74b1cb9cf1393b3187fa85485ce55c8
72849 F20101124_AABSBB taylor_k_Page_62.jpg
ce591bc0d9294114f34bdf66768dedec
83a8a75f84e040681ce5584c4d2b74462c8cdfe4
57253 F20101124_AABSAN taylor_k_Page_91.jpg
e536822515c7d61b80dce1e9fed3a34e
e2119bf07b8bf016fee9900d551eb2d5937ee50d
6373 F20101124_AABSYJ taylor_k_Page_73thm.jpg
4adfd2880ce280b38a36cf02da299121
94452879ac79b2136c66b7234b861dcc8bfcb1b2
6380 F20101124_AABSXV taylor_k_Page_63thm.jpg
48f87f8e5bdb77571efdba92417717ec
b53ebf8220fb75a860a7a10e978bf7a97293ab00
81463 F20101124_AABSBC taylor_k_Page_31.jp2
e22c83ed5ccc5bb0b4500d1719bcfe49
a8ae1fba871e62a54786745e177adc0810914ae7
94088 F20101124_AABSAO taylor_k_Page_80.jpg
caa73d6d0be1d2e2d220188280974591
d56e66655cbb9056e037e7103cb2a264dd650437
23987 F20101124_AABSYK taylor_k_Page_74.QC.jpg
e8d8e1693257bf6abaf2364843a119a3
4c17e3a670243874b8ea140a018307aa4e8a3951
121248 F20101124_AABSBD taylor_k_Page_84.jp2
ac63aaf47c6225aff5bd152f764eabde
ee4a4b9bfc02bb7991028a2dd1cac179016bdabf
23879 F20101124_AABSAP taylor_k_Page_70.QC.jpg
25430dc3b5d0db42de67a184b3e0783b
38ab1db55eba5fd4b71105faa2f84227bc693aad
20564 F20101124_AABSYL taylor_k_Page_75.QC.jpg
99b21cd8b646a1d68ecb4f20b285aadd
0cccf559e5006e2efebb53e8e64b51e060ef15e3
5096 F20101124_AABSXW taylor_k_Page_64.QC.jpg
c234b6c6efecb100c0932ea12613c4a3
1a91fa337747bd846833e6b198dc4124fcd3865e
68519 F20101124_AABSBE taylor_k_Page_04.jpg
bcd91cf7cabea80e7e1e4dfa62ad83ab
74d2571b2cda9944dd55b617d87c6bee16d668e4
63021 F20101124_AABSAQ taylor_k_Page_75.jpg
35b7c416acfbb2eb8e30c3a36c4fdeac
8682583beaec005c7afe1c1fcd2be1359144a13a
5467 F20101124_AABSZA taylor_k_Page_91thm.jpg
3bd875abf165b5711fe96ffa17473011
13626e5092eb4bcbdff79b9d2b8700fa55d2b13a
27443 F20101124_AABSYM taylor_k_Page_79.QC.jpg
27c6d759f6460f265444db4c903e5468
c81e923f08959e4fd7030d36c82d4c70c280c8f4
19692 F20101124_AABSXX taylor_k_Page_65.QC.jpg
a6857d32fb702119f25a8c54d2d97f59
18753fc547b061623581e127107e1015ef014e3b
97392 F20101124_AABSBF taylor_k_Page_57.jp2
cb7514180b2fe5e5a53ffb210bd6d783
94f04e8a533e00f163f3e63a018b29de2d306146
69477 F20101124_AABSAR taylor_k_Page_34.jpg
469337a314da2f853e05c3d74295feb7
615ad4a2e4ed9c6dbef6c0d8b790314e74e72d58
105726 F20101124_AABSZB UFE0011426_00001.mets FULL
fd7c1d3c45ebd63855208b44a65b1c83
dbc52cb5df9a7731c09cd48db7c32d56b7d67ece
5437 F20101124_AABSXY taylor_k_Page_65thm.jpg
1f604b493085cbce3afce74dadae741b
7a58a8702ba68d96fd5bfcc0497f946371012927
54940 F20101124_AABSBG taylor_k_Page_45.jpg
705b2136d9bbe1e29fa0690a41f0c549
273a13206a78d1b1cd5611d3c5a91a418cef0101
68522 F20101124_AABSAS taylor_k_Page_22.jpg
2988c0afe88195eaec69ca968a1080a6
76b3ba8012dbb2d142dcfcb649f583b1e58d9573
26796 F20101124_AABSYN taylor_k_Page_80.QC.jpg
02b2e47115994085dc345f714357cdc5
aaf15841e752422fd147ce989faae08b0ddc7229
23976 F20101124_AABSXZ taylor_k_Page_66.QC.jpg
6c8f78f3642beb0b77d69a9f46d6ffa9
da59fede1e1eb8e6581dab05873ad9410cf044d7
F20101124_AABSBH taylor_k_Page_33.tif
c301e696bcd1803b036aa384c75957d5
5d6a0e01c06e7e1339ed66300d89276f57e03ba0
2042 F20101124_AABSAT taylor_k_Page_36.txt
03fa05c41ad51f286b66aa6eca7e6ea8
3da848958cb42ee2e6382db4493cf99ade3e8959
6870 F20101124_AABSYO taylor_k_Page_80thm.jpg
536a8fc644243f739cb99ba879809370
d8e617eda9d2db886b704f563ec5f9d58e550f90
8309 F20101124_AABSBI taylor_k_Page_01.pro
16ed723212277877193c1e75e00c5981
d256ea948d1141fee4b515c2d3002e4cf6ed8702
F20101124_AABSAU taylor_k_Page_04.tif
b5505970258eabb3fc8fc1d30db8dcb8
2df728df3334f304fc13a5ce6b935a52af8062d1
25498 F20101124_AABSYP taylor_k_Page_81.QC.jpg
4b8bb27fbf750a09ee3a1460e9407051
c69b92bc27ed4ea02fdc08376ba52432fb14e8a1
6831 F20101124_AABSYQ taylor_k_Page_81thm.jpg
621bd444169be4d49a04a3cbfca4db3d
5a2c9aa205022b92831eb740a3ef8f00bdbf75da
12914 F20101124_AABSBJ taylor_k_Page_90.QC.jpg
04ecd1cf301d7c93e8d6248c39fe26a8
0c0919dadbb441083cbbf0950c23b95198c3a354
F20101124_AABSAV taylor_k_Page_40.tif
fd80776679f90e6d65588d2543d1441e
6a595602384597a157e7ab009087d04dbfef86a3
11099 F20101124_AABSYR taylor_k_Page_82.QC.jpg
fdf2ec43e4645bd72b73d6c6cd87292b
1a6fa9d19a1cdcf517bb02accc32119843b723b5
4191 F20101124_AABSBK taylor_k_Page_02.QC.jpg
d18f009ba4140c18a2e5a397a1b54ba3
f3388703879b677ce0f93fc030acdb60dcc4bd5a
93372 F20101124_AABSAW taylor_k_Page_39.jp2
e8feab6d892aa6e16b5f98645da3df29
691459dc94d47b43f9126bb86d10522fb0e84928
24801 F20101124_AABSYS taylor_k_Page_86.QC.jpg
5df7733c0bac34cf20521baf211af88d
0daa67df54e39fca31469603ecae46efd521db55
69313 F20101124_AABSBL taylor_k_Page_03.jp2
2946eb0a6130c34d070d4827ce1e3331
7f0e77b99eb1b7f293f3c9c8c97ec8c1e19af9ba
F20101124_AABSAX taylor_k_Page_44.tif
f29d177c70baa39777701c9bf6bfc0ae
45b7e790d67ae734bcb18da1b3166fd1514c0b30
6608 F20101124_AABSYT taylor_k_Page_86thm.jpg
95c6fd946e8795d83ff9e8e4ed68ac73
8bdd1e01f56aca664790af1195d9293439b7a476
100286 F20101124_AABSCA taylor_k_Page_61.jp2
1b96ca2ee64266951054415ac8a239cb
ad6ea0866a6c59931655c54197b2b3e09d489cc5
1621 F20101124_AABSBM taylor_k_Page_14.txt
b2c7e5e22e456d79c3427e1d7b954faa
6259206d2ac9a5d217eb10dda237f5d762ba871f
72904 F20101124_AABSAY taylor_k_Page_66.jpg
370053b55e69e7ace5b7aed3f80edbd8
0ebe58c9944748020a69633ad966aea7365ec94f
23541 F20101124_AABSYU taylor_k_Page_87.QC.jpg
d6a15d5cdf427e72f70bf33fba22d820
b49308941af64d82abd63b124b0880f447c02d34
2237 F20101124_AABSCB taylor_k_Page_35.txt
4de756e1773c2c400f0b4fa5a2a4e4e2
473d7383351224599428333e309445cc9f5de8d5
85850 F20101124_AABSBN taylor_k_Page_24.jpg
a3021fb911f8a1c73b6ea604be511dbd
359fe0090aed907c5629f8dabb5b1c0943956459
5912 F20101124_AABSAZ taylor_k_Page_61thm.jpg
93380ff9b2e423b340f8f8764d34d9a2
9d4f08420094dacb8f45c7097f304aa233c20894
6189 F20101124_AABSYV taylor_k_Page_87thm.jpg
e63a50621c89d933a989f447af3e3f43
c992d30c24523197f7637ebf09007f0c60996876
43753 F20101124_AABSCC taylor_k_Page_40.pro
76ebb9686d37c6c1454bb49a973510c7
d4cb393354234203a9288a6aa73ba4776a1d9742
116186 F20101124_AABSBO taylor_k_Page_89.jp2
cb4130a908c5b74513b419e554c343e2
ed5a18630e1877f8ced2e46be98a9f5617eb3c07
23291 F20101124_AABSYW taylor_k_Page_89.QC.jpg
f522667575287993937e9fb472e5d827
32cd87fa89e5b5852f8b41059a101934cbffa349
6466 F20101124_AABSCD taylor_k_Page_85thm.jpg
06a8fc025d73abc8293350c7fcbb64df
d2abcce297b1ecd9e089fef5e2c75223037af04e
5838 F20101124_AABSBP taylor_k_Page_78thm.jpg
923dd11c0943d04475d5f6eb60a30cd2
28ec23bc4015c3ffc9dd646e2bf38e7be99b82fa
6498 F20101124_AABSYX taylor_k_Page_89thm.jpg
a6f641336d599085c7e9857637116f1b
41e785e2c5fb82f101203a0411a4fa8adafc3f3b
6462 F20101124_AABSCE taylor_k_Page_53thm.jpg
00949af5e845d0c3a216e2cadf38d7df
12f701204b3a97f3397e37410ce606bb54980e3e
6392 F20101124_AABSBQ taylor_k_Page_36thm.jpg
4825820639c5e3fda9e560b91053a806
c915a09b134928321578cf7865606371ad073bca
3660 F20101124_AABSYY taylor_k_Page_90thm.jpg
122e3dcd5b23c23c42da18a232ef93e5
8115cf44b1c40265fd457e092065809c64eb1443
F20101124_AABSCF taylor_k_Page_20.txt
6b9990bb9a1877835fb638dd229670cf
6526f921d876b60feda2129b35a5f19d05449747
107261 F20101124_AABSBR taylor_k_Page_36.jp2
48e01d6331320d24f1416acb3d58cec5
9935c0b3f554537fe3308acff12cbf50f2b49b09
18838 F20101124_AABSYZ taylor_k_Page_91.QC.jpg
f3a8e72a18a304d10373b4ed5280fd95
acee161fdc5ee416c129d39598d76aef41e63488
F20101124_AABSCG taylor_k_Page_48.tif
65dc726dd7c9f389ee6549cea887c5f9
fed2761b0c0919a45c85aaefb5d54b908566b72f
3326 F20101124_AABSBS taylor_k_Page_82thm.jpg
17e37e2b618bbcb925961f60adae6437
813ee31dea6faaf1072bfecfbe1f40bab0d57b32
103963 F20101124_AABSCH taylor_k_Page_83.jp2
b5df25d104e1dda56929bde9a80b6b03
64a15e6819a013f741e10c7c78f6c2f915219d4e
F20101124_AABSBT taylor_k_Page_84.tif
cd9cbbd361b3d50084cce9689f99f7cd
93df046ea9ba2d6da0d848391b80faa5d5e5f675
2320 F20101124_AABSCI taylor_k_Page_87.txt
bfc71ad7c8cf3a32223095bf9133134c
0d24f7d155b483e991755de7ecf8edc5e3f39770
21129 F20101124_AABSBU taylor_k_Page_27.QC.jpg
97a3cdb2a640daf00b2c6a3ff398e7d5
07268bc557bb59f4e0fb4de12ac98b6502924691
50745 F20101124_AABSCJ taylor_k_Page_72.pro
27b902d820d2526d8c528405360897b1
60c5f5570bdfe7db872f7861dc6fa13e55a3e576
27407 F20101124_AABSBV taylor_k_Page_38.pro
b27bf57471c95ab522e0a5c8f6085d53
fb4519bca2dfafa31df02dbbe7b8132a9795beaf
F20101124_AABSCK taylor_k_Page_74.tif
6814ac9cc5d13e04d06c51b9513c19de
e0596561e102f93257501d97e4a1bfcfe922c169
42607 F20101124_AABSCL taylor_k_Page_52.pro
a2d7a81529f7ecf54e35726eb0996c99
e44d99e9ee2906e4a8b1ae0916cea0afed2acc9b
F20101124_AABSBW taylor_k_Page_66.tif
68b9a04ea6022aa36c0471cbdb7888e6
b039b6d9d5f45457d370ea0a830616b12482bbd3
4885 F20101124_AABSDA taylor_k_Page_64.pro
9523866ea55d05be86a3e5f892d30899
798c80aee559dc4c43877ab3a4bd578b62de225f
20877 F20101124_AABSCM taylor_k_Page_55.QC.jpg
ce6ceb18642274b6fab112519df6bc3f
0494fca77dd3da8398bc604329811df49c3911f1
2101 F20101124_AABSBX taylor_k_Page_53.txt
0d47bfa4c0e67027b351f5d709ab477b
5d0554aa2ba822dd3599646ffdffe8ed350e3e5b
111912 F20101124_AABSDB taylor_k_Page_47.jp2
b441c1b2cc3aee72ea98a7fa466b6e06
ebec5130327daa888fbd72fc715283f4e859a1fa
52700 F20101124_AABSCN taylor_k_Page_89.pro
df367577914cabb0b053c08761819e80
78d278c02437a041b424233c482fe022b1b1c361
73227 F20101124_AABSBY taylor_k_Page_53.jpg
10b1bbac369edfdff83e1d0aa1d5e5fa
30b8245f1fbd5949e353ca34d2acba31bcf9d047
38270 F20101124_AABSDC taylor_k_Page_91.pro
641d343727800999cefcc8c5eabc4a05
ff568a6133a6f6057a9ec2782660a74e24094014
1777 F20101124_AABSCO taylor_k_Page_45.txt
5504a405c6a6220b54d67183fad2d023
d60540a4992a12878e0737462cc19cf2300140a5
88276 F20101124_AABSBZ taylor_k_Page_88.jpg
0c725c1062ab5e88dd87708858d2268b
4c69aa963f6667c031b3db9f453aed72b50d6384
53126 F20101124_AABSDD taylor_k_Page_47.pro
da9cffda1b7eb47d58b487d8f7d5fc8c
c68589ce8c3e943be789f9af2801d8440fb2624e
21861 F20101124_AABSCP taylor_k_Page_46.QC.jpg
057634d884fe0e212dd82b4e27647ff6
955873f6dbe9f5549ce054054eb1aca3dc946c2e
18889 F20101124_AABSDE taylor_k_Page_06.jpg
2411b7e2f59af0eb7d83eda07e92a833
571f438c7bf7f115dccc9f9a135b71f93f9b68d7
14497 F20101124_AABSCQ taylor_k_Page_38.QC.jpg
3fbbcf0d1f5abfe8a94f199f1c76caeb
c4c1fb9546d10c120e996db1cb4c96d725e3ad02
54351 F20101124_AABSDF taylor_k_Page_08.jp2
bcef3edf7854cb813dba7d766879267f
9f1c12dc77ba83dc4b0e4ea859d4897e68a3a73c
50147 F20101124_AABSCR taylor_k_Page_69.pro
bacac0fd88b6004c712e0e99cb1ba470
9ef78126259c01ddc12e3aa30afd5d01d723e16a
2023 F20101124_AABSDG taylor_k_Page_10.txt
1b6c40bd991469f384550bb8c202b4d7
a40a1c5ddc060971bf149b18cad281d02d97dbf7
66948 F20101124_AABSCS taylor_k_Page_56.jpg
af9f12b4412d6fd8e2e0d03c115ffd87
f383163001c90632e244f02c1a7b23208b5284af
73065 F20101124_AABSDH taylor_k_Page_28.jpg
34bf3c55b33dccf623253bceb2e46ac6
e1f344422b5d06223aebaac372ae3b44276b75ee
3571 F20101124_AABSCT taylor_k_Page_77thm.jpg
94de25eb1ebec74f52d3f276780db105
19bd90540a297e4c28475676850e93980f883299
6208 F20101124_AABSDI taylor_k_Page_43thm.jpg
cc1109ea455c64c79d6890b7f19f8df3
cd43c9ea6e1a33e51cdfb5118825d603d227ec18
6630 F20101124_AABSCU taylor_k_Page_18thm.jpg
fe04e895e4fb98c796ecb343f2271479
e01b24d55f91740776b72b9cedfb760c89e281ab
63254 F20101124_AABSDJ taylor_k_Page_38.jp2
f608f90530a5a903709bbd62a531df2f
d6829e2e6959305f8a02e3ca0fd2ea8f9875aa7c
2084 F20101124_AABSCV taylor_k_Page_15.txt
6d635212793a83cb21c57ca6bd5e87ab
3ce2bb5c816837b7ecd34e8eaa91f16dffda5a6f
1051980 F20101124_AABSDK taylor_k_Page_17.jp2
73e987c7b4cab2226a59d0dadec3f35e
22e648da6e5a304eee861c345beb0a53fb14bcc0
1681 F20101124_AABSCW taylor_k_Page_55.txt
11eb3d287aedfc9603f3cab242f3bc3c
dec100390dca5e12cb0dcbcc8e7158096d5d40cf
107800 F20101124_AABSDL taylor_k_Page_69.jp2
48e1569b99de252d4e42c7c0ae902d04
5c1d79a33944229d63d69a9907e3834f205568e4
82983 F20101124_AABSDM taylor_k_Page_86.jpg
393b2c175bd5eb81d57eae6f3359cef4
d88cafdc35dfb78d89e5b22fdc0f8e1fdc6db2d4
70708 F20101124_AABSCX taylor_k_Page_58.jpg
61b8d13886217f2615cd3a08fcdee4d0
fd48aad4129474ba4b288375dae25eb352849a44
52535 F20101124_AABSEA taylor_k_Page_85.pro
329d4cb391872142e1327568729075e9
f1686496913c3394067ecac5a4db619071900c04
6505 F20101124_AABSDN taylor_k_Page_68thm.jpg
a4b9db048d7a9a45713aef84b7a87819
dd6b3a13d2abd81bcf8c98a2eb232a49b7443917
F20101124_AABSCY taylor_k_Page_37.txt
e6c57d9f5b21775fcbdba49a6b6b9bcc
374270bcd8d41f575dcc651a166dc4d23f4dbfd8
13264 F20101124_AABSEB taylor_k_Page_64.jp2
7f17a8867a18b220b885d6c6b66d23d8
e9cef59fda96f6f7d4b31dee21bceb72cebc49b0
115810 F20101124_AABSDO taylor_k_Page_32.jp2
9d9dc46b9ac6f9e13e790d38fa154441
b11ff78a5dbd3e7b1c04eccea6928582489d34fd
48630 F20101124_AABSCZ taylor_k_Page_21.pro
479a3d46975f3cd527a9d43847aace5b
6cf37cc5f49b9d1d5146c3bfff62f6d0287403c9
2818 F20101124_AABSEC taylor_k_Page_81.txt
83a9a86399370fae2fe7003f64b34488
fa3384fff8964c22c982ea1817a4f0e55c91dcb7
413565 F20101124_AABSDP taylor_k.pdf
c9f43a8c932a44e419c3d4b43d736c30
39556791d62babdf7a538a91852390b552933baf
75360 F20101124_AABSED taylor_k_Page_59.jpg
9a0ee6047a7d75a94df575283c9ed5e6
5f029fee1d9f690f02fc6de5fde2e939dadd85a7
F20101124_AABSDQ taylor_k_Page_26.tif
65622b0b26771d2c40090fa762d283e1
fc768e4ac353ad757f0e10594004501da5f1f5ed
6101 F20101124_AABSEE taylor_k_Page_37thm.jpg
f9983b9ccc933fc0b643da0166e4159f
971961e7332d4b196bc36187a9c3988e1745b34a
46980 F20101124_AABSDR taylor_k_Page_22.pro
c77bfe8eb5c56db564f0b7267bea9555
e77e047f09dbdb2f8c0ae9cf78d4a2fe987f6b28
2653 F20101124_AABSEF taylor_k_Page_24.txt
a77dc0c5a90509d943dcd114447537aa
3ec57879007d72415bc23bb3e4e69da6e5d2f8ad
26412 F20101124_AABSDS taylor_k_Page_07.pro
ebfb1a3b1d9eb2a013e8b77e54a45eef
724469984733f0a4e19945de74c5a57172bf6a36
1990 F20101124_AABSEG taylor_k_Page_48.txt
7f1f0949fff01df69147debb64d2a155
80d200cf52b5b36152fd7a67af9a7543d8455632
22289 F20101124_AABSDT taylor_k_Page_43.QC.jpg
e97bca4481e9ba558151d431f6cd30ac
3440d7234016bf987e3cd8d3fdb71593de8a66dc
116786 F20101124_AABSEH taylor_k_Page_85.jp2
8dc92f3ffb29b7ee3ab3f1775d1a3760
3f006a657eeb7c0c4befc98032b33b85737d6411
6633 F20101124_AABSDU taylor_k_Page_11thm.jpg
7913fccfce812fe279b203534f381a22
1534b69f82e786ebad4b7a6583d23a2e68bdda26
5782 F20101124_AABSEI taylor_k_Page_83thm.jpg
c177676be1dd8448d85efea6884f5483
4c8301e86ce9d187e1958842db112ef987b79a07
50473 F20101124_AABSDV taylor_k_Page_73.pro
0a3ada3495f63a099fcced3e496e585a
c87f17db1231d631795306f5bec3ac51dab8dc11
6119 F20101124_AABSEJ taylor_k_Page_60thm.jpg
d75c1e4d0fe36a3476ee7a3d8d9c39cf
4ac674db20306197706d72e45fca5e99d1663c0f
17556 F20101124_AABSDW taylor_k_Page_04.QC.jpg
b72ca4b224d34754436a593d8c2de63a
89a4ecc7b82d9fd07e1aa28b5b0f065738b0a722
50939 F20101124_AABSEK taylor_k_Page_36.pro
43e6fc63aa1be4bd0dac88ac5b21d862
8a71e3ae24454c0857f326e814c293bbc31ff9e7
25751 F20101124_AABSDX taylor_k_Page_90.pro
dfd5ae08f704373c5e9edfc3bf791b02
db4e72ef80bfa5b527a41c4f5d6beeedad3c9242
F20101124_AABSEL taylor_k_Page_58.tif
9774071f8d5ebed020795e1ac8990bdd
0a80aeb6655b9aa7fcc9e08c67364bc487f497d7
6501 F20101124_AABSFA taylor_k_Page_72thm.jpg
aa0503969b34fce43db5abf8cacc4c3f
bef211dc41eee672e682055e291e9fc5d2e08882
F20101124_AABSEM taylor_k_Page_27.tif
50d99839910bbab66902a811e5b49cb5
bfabf6d7b05ea8feb193b8eae7b7a30d64a16ca9
44414 F20101124_AABSDY taylor_k_Page_54.pro
e9e03cc6e4be5d894debb793977c214f
6d76853ec187e5b08c91e542ea7f67b478e9f9a5
1881 F20101124_AABSFB taylor_k_Page_61.txt
c7712f0dee1a3b3190f5b0a08feef8f8
973fbc9d5ca561637369be234a00526c71e7d88d
26240 F20101124_AABSEN taylor_k_Page_88.QC.jpg
10e3ef53d43245eadfca46480fc3e8a4
2632afcb4409d88db8308e32b4a52fbfd1ed1b5a
1969 F20101124_AABSDZ taylor_k_Page_69.txt
02ad459234c0fb4a35862aba485b2f69
0919811f034c3cec391257b6de3e135f40208aa4
104144 F20101124_AABSFC taylor_k_Page_42.jp2
ba8962ffd3bd47b09f61e384d8b23439
9cfbfcae541936bae1b5d7268123a371ab3aa029
63028 F20101124_AABSEO taylor_k_Page_40.jpg
2175d0614100d906a748f16650bbb1e1
1279c9db855a600f6f14d774e0ed9cee2e6b1a1c
2072 F20101124_AABSFD taylor_k_Page_30.txt
711eea09c9351871e354972bd17bef72
49ca727b304c12ed4fef5882a4a05521e045cf06
48080 F20101124_AABSEP taylor_k_Page_63.pro
b8305d10ac30280cbe9c65b7ae5ccaa2
9b4777eb7eaf42f4be55e9ccc5ce11425312730f
6557 F20101124_AABSFE taylor_k_Page_84thm.jpg
c5b956362d15df0c65e36a6a3f46cef8
0302f9cc683140f38be7595184773783f8aa9e53
43929 F20101124_AABSEQ taylor_k_Page_60.pro
6f1e2caf5c20439013d0aede60e8b8f5
695a5d82c45d299b14ebf980c42e6cf38ac86489
122010 F20101124_AABSFF taylor_k_Page_86.jp2
4a7f1615c99dc3375574045a3ee70954
6e33f67fce73ad5de2960327a096bab5b3dff262
2396 F20101124_AABSER taylor_k_Page_88.txt
d9f6c5ef9745d6625bb0633fd38bcd9e
348140863e6575a4636addc50663eaca679ec1a3
F20101124_AABSFG taylor_k_Page_12.tif
bd0719a00baea9f6d3fe5e8337fcab6a
7aaecec5faa7b81e4fe07d58514789592df11506
F20101124_AABSES taylor_k_Page_26.txt
9a0d9acb07865d037299f224bad93baf
de6e08d36d4ffd1b4c01119a7ea9bf427f1658e3
2220 F20101124_AABSFH taylor_k_Page_19.txt
92ea87555c78496bd0eca34b0da9703b
f84db5b2f9c198aebc37193d921162973cff2bae
22118 F20101124_AABSET taylor_k_Page_78.QC.jpg
ac56844354e4fb40be42fb74a664e83e
c015b14cb41ae69e968d0753ff21959eedafb7d6
1712 F20101124_AABSFI taylor_k_Page_02thm.jpg
5b5e26fccde210f25e98b791cbbf9d3f
04280f50e06cd88cefbb6c963f1c621fe076b75d
F20101124_AABSEU taylor_k_Page_43.tif
862ff9f753fb6293a70bb846642f4451
4c87802a86e690bbcca3c3dc1a4b912ad4e15661
1760 F20101124_AABSFJ taylor_k_Page_57.txt
bbce3619d1866cc1d901dedc47be31ae
d43a598982b70f16596a57cdbce515374f68c03e
24588 F20101124_AABSEV taylor_k_Page_35.QC.jpg
7562927687b64313abf3aae8934bbced
ca160836e9851da43be9088a7303c327da76588d
22940 F20101124_AABSFK taylor_k_Page_26.QC.jpg
33e9b761cacb113806778a69ccd24bdc
ecdea44352961dda375f399332f71cfb20ad4d8d
72326 F20101124_AABSEW taylor_k_Page_49.jpg
a8d1b00f9916ec8def31f9332fd2fbe5
077878409556a70f7403b60c95337eb68319bdde
82867 F20101124_AABSFL taylor_k_Page_14.jp2
df75e80adae7d30facfc205b980f332b
c30992272d66e36bf7f220fa2ee51977504a4b3c
111690 F20101124_AABSEX taylor_k_Page_20.jp2
c8a7782c2cce6e24a217fcfc9aae63d5
1b6c45a28f09a5ba598d9adea55914bf87d27796
38053 F20101124_AABSGA taylor_k_Page_14.pro
891b19fda278ace016130a93a697b2fe
942b195c47c475d16e32eb97e48c557cb3b935a8
52476 F20101124_AABSFM taylor_k_Page_12.pro
7c6c61c6a050adc81a2d118d6bd9077f
55a6ea26077bf17de303db2f88bf1f4872f0b71a
1867 F20101124_AABSEY taylor_k_Page_16.txt
c156b1dbd5a9647270e405e2f6f1c305
eac1283a0adcfb347c70816c05bc923e40bf9808
62785 F20101124_AABSGB taylor_k_Page_09.jpg
67a99a53fc478e9d5a5e29d953d650a0
34ee13036199e81d84b48597b5409ab689b23b99
89903 F20101124_AABSFN taylor_k_Page_65.jp2
f538fd6ed57e22b6f4a9dbcfdde4c10c
3b641132425c6f24eb6cdc03e50f05d67b9c9917
15566 F20101124_AABSGC taylor_k_Page_76.QC.jpg
93bcfa3dc366dd277d46eb10c88ee5ce
08ad38ebe1f6c0265c17dcfa3c069e43532e6707
1716 F20101124_AABSFO taylor_k_Page_65.txt
b6f1c6913335d28acf6fc10f491a8e63
212dfce42eaf918362283dad01a96b2419e96d5c
F20101124_AABSEZ taylor_k_Page_21.txt
aec43cfe92f5847ac38cca90f603c955
a9ca0113709144fa7178ab1e2c94c839d7976c46
24068 F20101124_AABSGD taylor_k_Page_15.QC.jpg
5d5525f6a31af018038299508d5b8be5
4b82f478a41bcb785426ebe584529cb569614c7a
1823 F20101124_AABSFP taylor_k_Page_39.txt
c9564b009868c5cda0c0bd33f83fead1
a8e54ca917da570402396099dacc3a554d18e733
6411 F20101124_AABSGE taylor_k_Page_56thm.jpg
e0aa8e30ba525ae81c0541bbe4635e52
e1f64dc8fa338157f4d92072daa2f9545e7c11ca
17493 F20101124_AABSFQ taylor_k_Page_31.QC.jpg
32a93c1aac83be6925fe3f325e712549
e8a45ab09b7a0fa22dc3faf40bf1a4cbf3098698
2126 F20101124_AABSGF taylor_k_Page_32.txt
128e00fe7d4592ff1c725eaf278f8bca
31a891067f77ab8645cefb0855e2d8e3ef01b891
20945 F20101124_AABSFR taylor_k_Page_83.QC.jpg
db578ed876942636d3f91b449cb04650
ac7e97e2c0f4f16d06d75d36b286d75a8b94acd4
F20101124_AABSFS taylor_k_Page_38.tif
81591622f44509de96ece18db89795b7
681b081c840c0a67d5120bb896802025ebc63e48
2229 F20101124_AABSGG taylor_k_Page_59.txt
2b337d522a6bb638b028d6935bbb89bd
5a38fdacdaab0d00d743e3d31129aedd83356f5c
79425 F20101124_AABSFT taylor_k_Page_89.jpg
482890691efbadf71700178e29fdd768
1a40d768f93aaf1282e4eaec58c4f8b94ac1301a
66388 F20101124_AABSGH taylor_k_Page_16.jpg
a9fc58730e3acc4b2f4029e3e3ea6922
1071673ac98f8eb4d6ab086c37734c99fbea9a22
23908 F20101124_AABSFU taylor_k_Page_82.pro
19aa94fe1bce83dc30526da6b227b59f
d5a23801686f4e877b4cf23f4ca78b2b7b890cf4
22402 F20101124_AABSGI taylor_k_Page_50.QC.jpg
37d864efa77be8297ece3428060a04c5
3cabbf6570eaaa3f5e3909739b05b055843c4893
F20101124_AABSFV taylor_k_Page_81.tif
7dd2798dfc9a9c46e997a1be4c7a4a54
ccc20dcc0344e9364f6650e569e41a4e7ab7468f
6912 F20101124_AABSGJ taylor_k_Page_79thm.jpg
62cafba02f70e8ed5e6dba9e3602c8fe
2a798b27637b01b3d85335ab6e4bb24932860ec1
78897 F20101124_AABSFW taylor_k_Page_45.jp2
889661bda1243cd7e64549f98f7dee3b
eb9d38dc0790634c61039188ef42abec5c342a97
2285 F20101124_AABSGK taylor_k_Page_13thm.jpg
0768eb9f58d0c11e91e2f64a92528a79
e4fc8470cff846fa85f000b44abca8dacf2980f5
22323 F20101124_AABSFX taylor_k_Page_54.QC.jpg
ad9e9e1914466569655cd8f986c31d17
31e2066d25738fed74f42654d9ba2ffea5d63312
1770 F20101124_AABSGL taylor_k_Page_09.txt
336d70548ceaaea1a28cc9fcf899d1ff
ad29df432130e4f9c59e60a08e2f56d8f0170717
F20101124_AABSFY taylor_k_Page_18.jpg
0e5dfad1f2bd32cb24491beb81cb777b
e38056193f1cc997cf83baa2b16a992b0cfd4ef2
2239 F20101124_AABSHA taylor_k_Page_84.txt
ba631e0288ee28ca0cf31e17b674033d
498316f675109479b6e49d696b9540906b307098
27065 F20101124_AABSGM taylor_k_Page_17.QC.jpg
021c055d6a4afb9e42982825502c7efc
bc975990fc0a519b0087df484511c8804d048a85
F20101124_AABSFZ taylor_k_Page_25.tif
79222cb849aebb7d478030c74001766b
b7ca26b9607b9a15eb63eeeee22a1ebde0ec100e
4497 F20101124_AABSHB taylor_k_Page_76thm.jpg
8d55b8dd144bc00046d65dcc3bec1acc
3492ff4659677a075d1313515dfac0afad15f363
119350 F20101124_AABSGN taylor_k_Page_35.jp2
e4887799fe36cf36d9cf43ce24deb077
a04f09966185acb16ff24d96d7519a66a9c47269
140886 F20101124_AABSHC taylor_k_Page_79.jp2
72772e0b8f3291edf72dad3fbff50b33
430816e4c066d73408964690243de9baa5532bba
1051977 F20101124_AABSGO taylor_k_Page_05.jp2
312714b54078768917e5d034f6d3690e
958dc293cf4db71a273c812bf62b196c31ba785a
2116 F20101124_AABSHD taylor_k_Page_47.txt
b221e1270ad363e058cdfdd477ff4c2e
2b6436070c7cec21cdecc906a6120f5e5859c9ae
F20101124_AABSGP taylor_k_Page_28.tif
66ea30c6aeef7780f09cb49969322f6b
824abb60a400db5d90fc890058dc728c445a5208
5675 F20101124_AABSHE taylor_k_Page_75thm.jpg
49413c018762cfda56728cb156f5b19e
a06372c196c5125256e69c61b94dce16c781e144
56856 F20101124_AABSGQ taylor_k_Page_70.pro
96ca0281f65181523dfcc1753fa19a56
e7e22032a15069cc5f0ba651f7d738c341db9cf6
F20101124_AABSHF taylor_k_Page_15.tif
e372c6a6c80c6ade703e26b433bc99d3
b5d8481a3388a02c0de9270191791123a4326362
58640 F20101124_AABSGR taylor_k_Page_90.jp2
133d1f134c562726bd8d67c707ab4bbe
212f530b386114effcca2b5f9fd627c5e0e5573d
51873 F20101124_AABSHG taylor_k_Page_66.pro
62b85993124764e4e57fe2a6457cc69c
b0c323a25d1f67d0f541134eb9ac9c688a36f6de
1088 F20101124_AABSGS taylor_k_Page_90.txt
5bcefcd98f5a99f7a6e30c74d5303e5e
638eb0cfbd8db810324ea949d81520b8700dd3ce
F20101124_AABSHH taylor_k_Page_61.tif
3a318b00eb1fec76e99c16ab936c2723
57a479b5a9f7d9c3063a15a7be36b0c6f92b2ba3
53060 F20101124_AABSGT taylor_k_Page_59.pro
b681d293e56fbb1f2086ea95cfff133b
a6e5ec6bbf41fe91801f3ceaac98fb8cb215d67d
F20101124_AABSHI taylor_k_Page_45.tif
45dc1cc091f8ebaade1fa13edabbf6ed
db5f50c37d93ffd3b43ea3459b92ddaf36d6142e
236 F20101124_AABSGU taylor_k_Page_64.txt
b090b01294e8ca75396671d391afe9d1
4ba31dce2d2a6f2e9f3b7ca24af38ee81a30f56d
77781 F20101124_AABSHJ taylor_k_Page_19.jpg
97210353c57fee84d3b2b582207b9eea
dcd726c7f47936665267928288f1f70a59a5aa4d
51114 F20101124_AABSGV taylor_k_Page_67.pro
934942696cbd2fe59a574d88f7f6014e
c48de1732e1b954c47f6795e5b53dbf0aa416bcd
22866 F20101124_AABSHK taylor_k_Page_85.QC.jpg
ebdbcf64d853796cfe7d5130d75c1994
7552108d00d96061ae1b31429fee1cda96a03a32
97232 F20101124_AABSGW taylor_k_Page_40.jp2
1ba2854142da6abff3dadb6f11eb5324
4608e21674328f7e8ae986e415befcece6973471
23859 F20101124_AABSHL taylor_k_Page_10.QC.jpg
a81771749a60fc5be2dd9ce6e4aafa87
ffb0460d193f5b593cec3156f4ca2c2cafb5e5dd
6064 F20101124_AABSGX taylor_k_Page_55thm.jpg
e8a639b1d0f6ae2eb361e60e7cb16213
e6d9f6c8f58047c74993ed9cd8ad12044bd93cf1
48172 F20101124_AABSIA taylor_k_Page_71.pro
5faa5114987a9a8c43e7b510b63f7cf6
ee0ac2dfaf4dda02acbbec9fc953a316571dfaee
7284 F20101124_AABSHM taylor_k_Page_17thm.jpg
80fad23a06ba621655ad15b467642cb6
daeef3d2801740c30515a73e6775efb9866d4a5e
73543 F20101124_AABSGY taylor_k_Page_10.jpg
b678ecd9a6873b3ac38197b169ceb59a
44cf9b63e80633d6f1c6aa2e987007dbcaaedd20
24103 F20101124_AABSIB taylor_k_Page_84.QC.jpg
ae73d1469ed3703803c7ccac9141d99d
92426c768b812fda82c8ea0c2ce62f008c954d72
6564 F20101124_AABSHN taylor_k_Page_24thm.jpg
117ba6bb09222c0077d8ef66f27c6de9
31cfeca8f3b3b504742f36878a7508ca6cf0eda1
F20101124_AABSGZ taylor_k_Page_56.tif
11204863107559267a26434b6269cfbd
dcd64bf01c0df739d389b8eafd06cad1577b0cd3
36754 F20101124_AABSIC taylor_k_Page_77.jpg
e20717d28bd9d8096f214e406e18e0ff
12dbb8a1d206b78ddf5821628bc8d4ea68ffa558
51556 F20101124_AABSHO taylor_k_Page_28.pro
d2b8bc1babf67c216042b9e6e6560a86
a18b4a09ce7efe9fe07302635dde7039fa0b7dc5
F20101124_AABSID taylor_k_Page_68.tif
54bf9fc67bebf593fafc8c2ca5162f98
e3d48ebedc8611fad7cc59893843f4ce3099dcb1
74791 F20101124_AABSHP taylor_k_Page_12.jpg
0662781b5b5069d4ce1c0a788e4e707e
a7e1125cf6ddb688d30f084f3faff1106d33a8ab
6547 F20101124_AABSIE taylor_k_Page_51thm.jpg
2705c77714dc9f58147b050631d3b9f4
528fd172992191c389dae96ccbe32f9c241acbec
11844 F20101124_AABSHQ taylor_k_Page_02.jp2
8fd027a96b1407dd2bbd3e26d6c05727
ef3473208c53c0844ae9fc34b900db4e24568739
109866 F20101124_AABSIF taylor_k_Page_78.jp2
59ff29771b1f8288fe88f31226a1c237
fba65efcee641052fbb96c91a28f7359d6143285
46420 F20101124_AABSHR taylor_k_Page_61.pro
0ded9cae3d3b1a663898d34bb9a7e892
033d67dee30af5bfef2daf81c19a83b49ad7b25a
6524 F20101124_AABSIG taylor_k_Page_30thm.jpg
364fca02ef5a39e80441fb072e92669f
a58331e51d2133df0fc6833d067f8ef962c50add
42019 F20101124_AABSHS taylor_k_Page_90.jpg
e9ee0219037a41e298afd3d6c65c77bd
857db67a76d6a6c7e132baa1fdef0c3b5443fc6a
1801 F20101124_AABSIH taylor_k_Page_41.txt
2f7637108e43ad950bbf7b2ed81735a2
9be11f7a530069057efc66b30fa660535e664763
F20101124_AABSHT taylor_k_Page_91.tif
5bad08e5adebc0f5a912c6e7bf7ecea5
6576d9d77958e7979402bbbce004b744936e1679
6642 F20101124_AABSII taylor_k_Page_49thm.jpg
7f0c5b3d43218ad3777e4b1022b9aeee
767de3337d156019f9ee2da372a5c43f70be0742
73869 F20101124_AABSHU taylor_k_Page_85.jpg
b09e962c5f560ded833d5ce3f4d247e6
b6cb616e61bc8040b1545bf52dda25ce304838ed
102556 F20101124_AABSIJ taylor_k_Page_22.jp2
d119c4fc11578f58aa64db19cec6e84d
44d16b6d30af61d389619ecebb2b5221d3d4ed2d
20486 F20101124_AABSHV taylor_k_Page_13.jpg
b47ed233ef89357774d54a5817c1fd76
10ff82f6ec5c544365b009cbb5c904b824dab52a
F20101124_AABSIK taylor_k_Page_75.tif
804bde6fa5a71e3af2b7de02e4bdfdb8
0e14dc34e6e99707b13405d3651b09cda604918e
1778 F20101124_AABSHW taylor_k_Page_64thm.jpg
b7db00da65c3682b2df7fd15f11981a8
44b8dd5728430d8f93c9c71cee1b8c6250039ae2
1921 F20101124_AABSIL taylor_k_Page_50.txt
c2ea66216df9f00a979a8e3cae46035f
6fae301ee0ce8ad31ef8dd1b2ab23254a6e1b288
6691 F20101124_AABSHX taylor_k_Page_12thm.jpg
cc77cff4ccb3ff14837f1377b4406bf5
8aeed4b5c2a3263127a9738143d2b00cb840057f
111443 F20101124_AABSIM taylor_k_Page_10.jp2
88f148b52e2b36a317947d208647ed5a
e302bad97eafccf5ae7c5b02e91c44f3d924debc
69230 F20101124_AABSHY taylor_k_Page_80.pro
defbfff4cbeaeb20e9d1d455331d4d1d
f9c7d40e75453377aea36e30338ce47a0d2e991b
4526 F20101124_AABSJA taylor_k_Page_38thm.jpg
d6e03d9f26e21b2b061ea61bfd5a5ddc
c501d6cd56639d7a2aaf7ab84099194b3569cfa4
21921 F20101124_AABSIN taylor_k_Page_34.QC.jpg
831d6d1af07c57547cf57e20b2ab7403
7fbcddd03ee1ef9f23355099948982929268fa60
21228 F20101124_AABSHZ taylor_k_Page_57.QC.jpg
fea176d8733430455be2b2154d7d0725
7a96249e46347ab2254042d552c55132d9894b4f
F20101124_AABSJB taylor_k_Page_40.txt
f8fdd39856bed2e88ec0bf9bfbbc5dc6
70ae369989e43653b34185c7e14b4758964c4c2d
F20101124_AABSIO taylor_k_Page_37.tif
ee844506965eaf048a1a6cc7f81af34d
8915d6ddfdf87140604ec83eeeebc94392979f07
6069 F20101124_AABSJC taylor_k_Page_57thm.jpg
0012ea7223c2a4d58d2f01cf4a0d1990
bd92733135ff1eff597270c11de587b8a76927c8
72314 F20101124_AABSIP taylor_k_Page_73.jpg
74b145de7a8f9e723fb972089e4d0582
688d7749be5c15ce83edd45417bcd7b199b0394c
F20101124_AABSJD taylor_k_Page_76.tif
0696a4f371704725f066b626fae05a36
93f93f69a0db2b92c090a268ceabf6e3e9084419
6448 F20101124_AABSIQ taylor_k_Page_25thm.jpg
17ebbcf428bec965170903dc64ea4b31
101c6770f97a74e96eefee5829b4634a1c2c085b
F20101124_AABSJE taylor_k_Page_49.tif
1ace4e60fd37729ef7df8b329ee68ec0
3789f6aaef3852da3e575e98b3770edcf2cea566
73536 F20101124_AABSIR taylor_k_Page_20.jpg
f4dd7d89f164314f50f39cb4a87f593e
cff686e2d5b7484b04ad597864f60ec9c9636c2a
101923 F20101124_AABSJF taylor_k_Page_63.jp2
712f6f9400c6083abf7f1c12d2bdac17
77ed234b6af4183d7ae36a728609a76169e90014
F20101124_AABSIS taylor_k_Page_21.tif
d90d6ac3f7479f9d27c62414ddd5b95d
5c3d695fa676521fedc4c2edfe4e334d19be64bf
6764 F20101124_AABSJG taylor_k_Page_74thm.jpg
d110bba0dd74a672db164f8270c3034f
06245035c6ae74cc23bfb3e0754bdd686a95abf1
5139 F20101124_AABSIT taylor_k_Page_14thm.jpg
5e7233fbce078269c27dec2e7a2759fc
27180bccb75ef00a29b53487c103fc945dcc2da0
6160 F20101124_AABSJH taylor_k_Page_34thm.jpg
68483fddfef30fd62db791b1466929f6
d67170736be80b627f4b2ed179aa6d49d624d45b
2429 F20101124_AABSIU taylor_k_Page_01thm.jpg
b8e9a758c2d66b3beeae793ea16f224e
6cc4c9ffdf9bda6f5e2c8134a85933148d0e0f61
5791 F20101124_AABSJI taylor_k_Page_09thm.jpg
130e75b0485804512583721ac7f31767
1fd0759d75f622ae35120e094b9252f37784138e
6435 F20101124_AABSIV taylor_k_Page_21thm.jpg
14cb28195664a6aac5ac5d237c951ef3
dde0a16b2e8dcf4fced4ce7c2078629c2ac60775
1098 F20101124_AABSJJ taylor_k_Page_08.txt
86d0d5b7a5b170974e284ea8e270cb44
9bb5d08d49afc744779029c9502b2f66d7222e1d
6708 F20101124_AABSIW taylor_k_Page_15thm.jpg
e20f6973432f87e27d24ca25ee7b6125
2490e027e6c6e09ab7d8c4f111cbc619d3b07437
104096 F20101124_AABSJK taylor_k_Page_50.jp2
7ef882c4908bf50cb1fe685483de688b
a38fce8f27e728dd6e7f1c1da6ff6a38ed458fd3
105226 F20101124_AABSIX taylor_k_Page_43.jp2
fabebf4ad9ed79707c210ee4ca512cb9
fea69c4c977c95e602c77b8887b60158c4bf0447
53322 F20101124_AABSJL taylor_k_Page_11.pro
c1b428487d151301ce6e9989da20b864
a55b012164427108c08e3cbea424ec9db117530b
100146 F20101124_AABSIY taylor_k_Page_56.jp2
bba39f2d8465218100d17cf0abd2d159
c06fe81328cf7174d637dcf1224986bdb59846f5
106960 F20101124_AABSKA taylor_k_Page_53.jp2
70fcba2126f8550dba7bc724003246b2
eb39185cfaa6316d255f93414cdcc3c6efca62ad
6607 F20101124_AABSJM taylor_k_Page_13.QC.jpg
fdf13ecd04e055bcb37d461d25c1587c
3406811777291f908ed77c99c03cee23e466ec5d
7246 F20101124_AABSIZ taylor_k_Page_01.QC.jpg
065ca878cc5e16f7ff4f3ab2682b189b
96a0aabaf9d166d72327dbb5170c9bb8eb694bc6
23364 F20101124_AABSKB taylor_k_Page_29.QC.jpg
5fa28945cd6d2b3ac9199776a5868e3f
2ac30b82f6b8f74ea29f32c43cec363aef05a326
48070 F20101124_AABSJN taylor_k_Page_25.pro
bdccc8d942673d95a3d76ad3a874ab74
c689d59a024b4cf7e458635c3cb8cac28adbeec3
72674 F20101124_AABSKC taylor_k_Page_23.jpg
c55eeaa1d4b409cda005f779d118daa7
bc312b11f7b5e3a3cf0a8038893e1afae2ebeb3f
11560 F20101124_AABSJO taylor_k_Page_77.QC.jpg
7f3425401ad65ced0140c623514177f1
a52053af79000ed65f1e01773009d68c721fcbf9
F20101124_AABSKD taylor_k_Page_63.tif
94db9f3e7d43af5d0f0e7eceb43ae2f7
8a12de334d1048fe77066fe7b460e2a96a7ee836
107416 F20101124_AABSJP taylor_k_Page_46.jp2
2eb5e5b406983859ad1cb55772946bc1
7e28be1b0b871838c339c3c0cd57a9bad44004e8
108887 F20101124_AABSKE taylor_k_Page_67.jp2
7bc23d5d984ae70e71be93d659366b40
10945775b1f72eb428b85868633f4c095718bf53
70373 F20101124_AABSJQ taylor_k_Page_83.jpg
a70e2ab8373b530a5afa3e768ca6218b
134465325f2920b072e02f06b95fe551da9589e7
1929 F20101124_AABSKF taylor_k_Page_60.txt
22d3508c834d7f24cd4df8d8e62aaa72
90cb9ce0540c90d9ce1ba5b375834f3caf242662
F20101124_AABSJR taylor_k_Page_57.tif
e3928e518355a358e31bd995ac9c2d64
a659d6d223af1cd5608f2186619f65777eb10a74
23761 F20101124_AABSKG taylor_k_Page_11.QC.jpg
115229c20458e44e7282415ca2ce2a2b
68f77b0f805fb2227a1a81e766ed4d9014772b00
23969 F20101124_AABSJS taylor_k_Page_20.QC.jpg
37840369291992981b59ced95ab51fe4
bd20ec33210b72e79c80e4070d87cad073f455da
74560 F20101124_AABSKH taylor_k_Page_30.jpg
ec87909e7d97eef20f775880ff212948
d943f08877140bc58814173374469603c450943d
2162 F20101124_AABSJT taylor_k_Page_85.txt
921f842f02616880f3151486e4e6fd8a
92e50022dd17fc7567397cc1b0816a86c33f13ef
19803 F20101124_AABSKI taylor_k_Page_39.QC.jpg
883ce6c57d672dbfec39b08ca6dc1536
b9603ae1098f43e46fabd3a3c703a249a612e7ad
2045 F20101124_AABSJU taylor_k_Page_66.txt
6508b098bac307b7cc2595fa9870506a
07ded92895e698db46d5ecfebcfa5d0de4b506b7
42876 F20101124_AABSKJ taylor_k_Page_09.pro
4a493cd9dc22edec72c150b1a683e61a
bd25da6f46107b3860e8ab0f22499825d0018bbb
111080 F20101124_AABSJV taylor_k_Page_66.jp2
0e977381fc63d78bf4deb94b8bfed963
092f4dff25c13f77de2f6479e5ab2c6ddc952663
5070 F20101124_AABSKK taylor_k_Page_31thm.jpg
6fb32a98f15c5755041e682102ee26bc
675758eb8808f1e56047e21b1c45814671d2b798
106338 F20101124_AABSJW taylor_k_Page_58.jp2
0d9c420b51d4858109a570c2a97f28be
0a433e188d5c005f4cbb751a15c8f0abb0b18482
6908 F20101124_AABSKL taylor_k_Page_88thm.jpg
4f03553c70dc19d94dda4ebf9d74aefe
f5d76dd03478b9585972ffaf0875ce26b23d2a0a
F20101124_AABSJX taylor_k_Page_07.tif
9305235ee154942a601e8c751f98617d
0d5620b341c0da700ac7b6f95162c25115c1ea40
48004 F20101124_AABSLA taylor_k_Page_03.jpg
2ae2a3baf275a98966c1995b132e83b5
9e4a499e75e76e9e0d400efb9f5b1420cd42f24b
51174 F20101124_AABSKM taylor_k_Page_29.pro
a36fe7b058bde5e3bfc5985c9923510e
a15fa5c59d7dd9098303749206c58332b10245ac
107508 F20101124_AABSJY taylor_k_Page_21.jp2
3a11fa5243193311d137e60a295b5256
b05cec27c95777f260a0694aef213209701c7944
94227 F20101124_AABSLB taylor_k_Page_05.jpg
470fc358a7f5940d82488252aac0eeca
2cd0a96e06ed6372311e3ad1d921389b5e87b9b4
1051981 F20101124_AABSKN taylor_k_Page_04.jp2
fa67e2d30113a7be205e020ef0973a31
d565e2a266be9aa3afc532887d74cc9ad20ae235
23102 F20101124_AABSJZ taylor_k_Page_68.QC.jpg
1011ae8c4d8a03dd1c1f7791b54bbe09
a81cd6bcde49bc51e1929fcded7772f66d295101
30128 F20101124_AABSLC taylor_k_Page_07.jpg
e199085889a84717fed179020993ebf5
1e215b4c342ba0416616eb3ec48e71e85a801fad
2022 F20101124_AABSKO taylor_k_Page_51.txt
69d9260d7cbd7d7e54ff5deb4c132fe0
255fc5676d2fcb575cfd13df485c9f4a01a5edf5
2266 F20101124_AABSKP taylor_k_Page_70.txt
9e6d03ab6eedf3fa018cf4a923c0e1d5
85fbc876efed376916a828fb85e31ba4f355063b
39239 F20101124_AABSLD taylor_k_Page_08.jpg
922ed6d26e9c55972328555f81a73a0b
96b9f1084aa2285e3eef3541f8a7f6cb2921e5f1
96736 F20101124_AABSKQ taylor_k_Page_55.jp2
185bffad7227977c7f7866937f61b6a9
c0fa02841627dd4237ccdd641a372e655fedb1bf
74458 F20101124_AABSLE taylor_k_Page_11.jpg
47e6057b8459fb4e1afa63cf8a783eee
49c698e480d46e7ca60db22b4bfa712470ca97dd
23670 F20101124_AABSKR taylor_k_Page_28.QC.jpg
fdb0f3ae904a7b51c5886d77f036a355
be08182870faf7776b1b0b855b54f4376fdb747c
56194 F20101124_AABSLF taylor_k_Page_14.jpg
65fc8414486c5124e21173eb51e16811
06868bd0339b9e8869492117e2fb4062f8087cc7
48528 F20101124_AABSKS taylor_k_Page_50.pro
d7c2a24c13f1d1925b8c2b4f98d02593
6d2e586f7aff7ed4e6d7a7d462fee1027e12e117
75028 F20101124_AABSLG taylor_k_Page_15.jpg
5b8488ac2ff4fe3d11e4b9dfeda1aa70
5e5b36dd86c5820f28ff8660be656dbe0d591201
1454 F20101124_AABSKT taylor_k_Page_44.txt
06204166c925a6661fee5d63a24036a9
64f113a70146e7a205794a9dc52036bacf893afb
95521 F20101124_AABSLH taylor_k_Page_17.jpg
47a81a0427efb240bd43bb35be752c78
ce95a20a1f7cbc5fd6090fcc16348ae6f2750bf6
63091 F20101124_AABSKU taylor_k_Page_39.jpg
03583e57b01cb751de9571ef47b28041
7ad6c6bca555a3821df131d43f4b9effcfe5588e
69360 F20101124_AABSLI taylor_k_Page_25.jpg
3367e9f69423cc63417c7a9ec60adf39
1eeb04c571da3849f38f44f8e834dcca086c121f
136906 F20101124_AABSKV UFE0011426_00001.xml
3e4bfbb805961cc463c9c2f8d5e41a48
4c326c43e5278f6be69fbbfa78414ac387558b58
70177 F20101124_AABSLJ taylor_k_Page_26.jpg
594e1ef9d596361183218fffe89aefa1
1e6e7daa404a2a419f91ded6a7ee36ac75efa726
66931 F20101124_AABSLK taylor_k_Page_27.jpg
da115a78f2ccb89ab06514adcc104e2a
9daf8b19f4565e0f9aa25aac39dc96a52c59f012
69306 F20101124_AABSMA taylor_k_Page_50.jpg
91611ab24cbc4668b591fecf6b5e6c10
b07c77d07dbbd17bc98a1263de1bb65c37920b74
72503 F20101124_AABSLL taylor_k_Page_29.jpg
4ca71d4af8dd5e60ea7f820d052854ca
bf093258a5848e2ee578e9370d5718b0cdcabd30
22989 F20101124_AABSKY taylor_k_Page_01.jpg
c3df99f2b0976c7cefebaaf9c5df9bb2
e1b1723c5c407447d1dc2d865405f35326f9d137
54871 F20101124_AABSLM taylor_k_Page_31.jpg
01445267258b1ded4ab82c0cab2de8ab
0969f541067befca23ddea00dee25560a5c5b90f
14580 F20101124_AABSKZ taylor_k_Page_02.jpg
44096de3110812907534d21051f2583f
ef61eadd72c24fc6917fc7cf8b8baac28926e0b8
73202 F20101124_AABSMB taylor_k_Page_51.jpg
b9816b3d2aec3f1a14ee95f5567a2861
0b8b269ff96d46dc69e57ce21a4aa67ec7f21a65
75540 F20101124_AABSLN taylor_k_Page_32.jpg
83368fcd0a1c2b4a3ba2e3aafe15a2e9
488552a99beb911e19d7f90549d68e3efc57fd21
61944 F20101124_AABSMC taylor_k_Page_52.jpg
26b0a258b65cc8c1bf19a55ce60201b0
2bbdf20a3482e36aaef50637349078f44cb9c721
71090 F20101124_AABSLO taylor_k_Page_33.jpg
307aba5be161ab3f92dd5cd4279bc01f
e40000888942c11d9372285c2ddf37e80a66e9de
67056 F20101124_AABSMD taylor_k_Page_54.jpg
7b9884166de6116ec2874b74b63697d6
0081bee0041053a454a658619f3c0ff62ab0c1af
78478 F20101124_AABSLP taylor_k_Page_35.jpg
db5baa3f41f4d52abd9cd26d4ee918b2
33452bff0c102a367002aa05f6c30451a3b411be
63281 F20101124_AABSME taylor_k_Page_55.jpg
6d8437edda47bda2ec843bc1d1685f44
1aef1e3d3d45eecf56bd73a4b3d6dca54546e94a
71219 F20101124_AABSLQ taylor_k_Page_36.jpg
9d57a41ff186b0536d0f02cdc2b3aad6
c55ef42b04d97d2b3115e2c415cfcdb88a3078e1
63420 F20101124_AABSMF taylor_k_Page_57.jpg
73d7e53d6fd26d6519bf20f1d399a4d2
b89d7da8f9b7d9eb84252edb735626b3d0688794
69357 F20101124_AABSLR taylor_k_Page_37.jpg
7bbb73f2ef6c932655908ee94d7eab8c
8d9ba9b72eb8ae1a730600ec546dc038ee3d0139
64811 F20101124_AABSMG taylor_k_Page_60.jpg
5bd48dc2bbd942eef807d280a1098e24
832f30011871be160ed724c7a25b37b894b15596
43496 F20101124_AABSLS taylor_k_Page_38.jpg
8ad3228076f4bb969878c2a1511a9368
c8db58fdc5c09cdbb9e6c8b83a63f012a6b862e8
65491 F20101124_AABSMH taylor_k_Page_61.jpg
a21dcd8273644bc647f73824fc116694
aa9df58cdc0d832239b30313854bebeecac62fb6
66432 F20101124_AABSLT taylor_k_Page_41.jpg
b6e4a2f91ff0d5a3b3ff4a075f7e43fd
2aa33b1fbe2fd7ab016bf468aea9ed8ad383ef6b
68485 F20101124_AABSMI taylor_k_Page_63.jpg
2073b28bdb067bf70d7bfb3a3ed7642c
f23ce07d7b13db5477e6923cfdfc6f710ee7f570
67579 F20101124_AABSLU taylor_k_Page_42.jpg
7090d32d1d40676e571cff056a9140ac
49fd5f8042ff430b2e2dfaaefbcc74c4deeb32f6
14749 F20101124_AABSMJ taylor_k_Page_64.jpg
391025b3f852b9d4b42ab0df3dcb0062
9064254443570378de1348c6faeec995ef74482c
68819 F20101124_AABSLV taylor_k_Page_43.jpg
84100910b6421c02a272a41a097a533c
2de0be13f3a7452d5264666bdd7419ad45d955ed
60025 F20101124_AABSMK taylor_k_Page_65.jpg
4cd6c12c60e4e943b2db1fb8992c638a
d4045bd6bc4c47c6204ccc9382b046c801bc0fbf
55116 F20101124_AABSLW taylor_k_Page_44.jpg
81a94e9a42673485e986536b0d5d0067
53d7874f9fa52f9d304858282d7c084f755fda81
367427 F20101124_AABSNA taylor_k_Page_06.jp2
89b956ad2a5c3bc0d61c0430130c91ad
947d6c72897c0a0644053cf638632c2b1c5f011d
71870 F20101124_AABSML taylor_k_Page_67.jpg
bc6a5562557dd78765cbb5b97bd32342
54e75065c48e6b38d58a508b2985a1296b7c4bac
71460 F20101124_AABSLX taylor_k_Page_46.jpg
19369790be261e9dee151ea0551aa347
24bd9ff4ad56d2e8d917a0ca627b90c890d7af27
655993 F20101124_AABSNB taylor_k_Page_07.jp2
a5cf3d6dd094af4b7ccb27a831d366fd
db32919753536f4dacdb30953aacb812eba77263
71220 F20101124_AABSMM taylor_k_Page_68.jpg
b69d73d777d0c1f246bad77e6e1ba68d
f5511eb9db618c27c3d85a734d257ca4efeacd35
74119 F20101124_AABSLY taylor_k_Page_47.jpg
567231b9133e02117121ef987b89e7ba
b305ff284e935aba5c1d75e4c9a49d0522bd7637
71261 F20101124_AABSMN taylor_k_Page_69.jpg
5995fa63d55c1f7de6960c0ab90c1d42
4745c25e13fa43518fef5e6f8a44177eab639d83
70415 F20101124_AABSLZ taylor_k_Page_48.jpg
622a1d610390f3d572daadf2140729c4
cf2da8f892a028f288661fa611e4c152a721b5b9
92754 F20101124_AABSNC taylor_k_Page_09.jp2
f8805e12f4538a67b8017eb98bc60702
6fbe6004f7e4d1c43a25fcbd3d8171366836c67f
79481 F20101124_AABSMO taylor_k_Page_70.jpg
e8efeba384fc92b0c5caf22f1c5a309d
9dacf2fe69696e2b9a6456ca8b31d5aa6fab6a9f
112690 F20101124_AABSND taylor_k_Page_11.jp2
d6fa916af4757b5d45d7492e11c27b12
ae2d270b5cf5560e332305f8810dc90c8aa50873
69157 F20101124_AABSMP taylor_k_Page_71.jpg
962453ed34a057fd5e045c969c90d7e4
693b74d7e6276d2b865822ff8a52645c25e07eb2
112826 F20101124_AABSNE taylor_k_Page_12.jp2
8280aa79a2792091b536d8162cd25495
d3ef87ec45d59e26faf4ae4aa6a01d48ff07f19e
72653 F20101124_AABSMQ taylor_k_Page_72.jpg
57cda9f150bfd585bbcc04c84dd30bd1
895507f6ab104f73f2b35e784fc62a5b98d478f1
23899 F20101124_AABSNF taylor_k_Page_13.jp2
aa03b2128906e78c8d22b9afe352359d
721034909c72fd6cd6b3c37ffdce219e7313c093
73114 F20101124_AABSMR taylor_k_Page_74.jpg
dea63b9d404e10e22a9bdd6a915c91f7
f6652b9cb9a70c5a4e23f66f502ec4e4021943f4
111632 F20101124_AABSNG taylor_k_Page_15.jp2
4854ee421b3a4b045cf678314531c348
f5c8f2b9164354b07b7dbe891a23ca604f31d9be
49410 F20101124_AABSMS taylor_k_Page_76.jpg
66a540867eb242e804e4e57329ab4e14
8efed319979d5de80024b44c0b3114e40b0846c5
100304 F20101124_AABSNH taylor_k_Page_16.jp2
8cc6a2991dcdf92d02699139e67673f3
ea7e9add241b5cbfe7f76f4ac06aca4f843c44c1
77125 F20101124_AABSMT taylor_k_Page_78.jpg
840beeee6c6f0e0d424c4c8101968982
cca22ab86592c7de3581b97b71ec9e2eeb875ea8
102250 F20101124_AABSNI taylor_k_Page_18.jp2
f80e86a73271321797cc0e89cf69b6a1
5168e6e371bd73eeb12d53c8f8560732799a9cba
98144 F20101124_AABSMU taylor_k_Page_79.jpg
fcaab60d4b4e4f0a06a834e4cfb6b4a2
8bafe2717fccf16e1c13450215f1edb1dc6192ce
117045 F20101124_AABSNJ taylor_k_Page_19.jp2
8d3c490eadadf0b0e714da2a6bfb3f3c
04772f369db95797128c50ed7d74464ef201cfa0
90377 F20101124_AABSMV taylor_k_Page_81.jpg
bd5896e883d405cff954e5395fced56b
2251622c6db17b8e242865a5d886096565afa85b
109443 F20101124_AABSNK taylor_k_Page_23.jp2
51229da0eb0c02b251d85498a03a36b7
57336b30196deac13a59e7cacd9824310eecf846
40356 F20101124_AABSMW taylor_k_Page_82.jpg
ed34cdf6509505e2c2a20b55668c6ad4
a57df2d3b161646a3c43e42d291388be5e68d08f
129202 F20101124_AABSNL taylor_k_Page_24.jp2
9e6ee0376ee99fc379e4a3df86470c3e
d6fbf8b4a1e4d43e3fb25e6b8bc5bb9e8d15ba9f
79669 F20101124_AABSMX taylor_k_Page_84.jpg
4c0fc242f970c543b3ce747680c91324
d8d0ed72814d4941891d52ac85187f9922f4b487
94728 F20101124_AABSOA taylor_k_Page_52.jp2
e0a0312983da715268c1add57b179e88
6421eeac0a318ed38cea9fe883dac1fa5004dd26
104077 F20101124_AABSNM taylor_k_Page_25.jp2
b93db1322b7eb7a1710e410a884f49b4
1976eab4077447fd694dcee39e4aceab19c7ac4f
88399 F20101124_AABSMY taylor_k_Page_87.jpg
06db816612a613e5bf06b1377d5c0688
19b35a9a75e6cf4892a717c8b0323083bda0720f
101886 F20101124_AABSOB taylor_k_Page_54.jp2
543f3fd708a445cf9bf4397231934c9b
8ed6da245f3b74319c627979f2210308a425906a
104660 F20101124_AABSNN taylor_k_Page_26.jp2
565d5deed049bbb83377c17097f20c21
d4ae59dff5dc2ab63c3a85a87ce440f393e7e6db
24360 F20101124_AABSMZ taylor_k_Page_01.jp2
9b93e0976b635d47dc612ca0bfe2ce68
4e4acacea8f9aefb2eadb2a13159d0a70c74b6ac
112158 F20101124_AABSOC taylor_k_Page_59.jp2
224c3ab02bd1a9e05c48e767b92ab8b2
898bc9269955aea7af5ce326b9700bc3cd4a4bd8
101869 F20101124_AABSNO taylor_k_Page_27.jp2
1a3075248f390e1cb5bb74f1ea6918b0
b75a7a98f5c16eebb606398c217035b9a240948f
112447 F20101124_AABSNP taylor_k_Page_28.jp2
6bbd0f083c23e27b0c5f46a6f20dbacd
6bbbd78ecbea9e79fa9afed5d7689913fb18e4e8
94649 F20101124_AABSOD taylor_k_Page_60.jp2
b72b128de86bff6841909373ed42fae4
26959d05f1836c7432d3f94a588c3196a9e5c374
110982 F20101124_AABSNQ taylor_k_Page_29.jp2
55abd4ad3b3a8dfe4790059063a44602
4e5c56caf1aeae06dbf245de324a4c4d20549390
107992 F20101124_AABSOE taylor_k_Page_62.jp2
6e8a24551b0f52a494aba73dc889814a
0c44477f926f03057b6a7237bd6be713f9455f4f
111747 F20101124_AABSNR taylor_k_Page_30.jp2
fd483d9a43649398fd61401e5f1c5d8d
c772a757123dc71738f9d77db147d8049e5735e2
108976 F20101124_AABSOF taylor_k_Page_68.jp2
cde0c85c48009293eb8c5dbf7f3df50c
071bb3c21e4dcbd48ac02f315011beffea407084
109388 F20101124_AABSNS taylor_k_Page_33.jp2
a1df8c3ffc00b2cd363a6a21a077ec8f
f52b5f593b25cc286a097e8e768922d1477dedd3
118991 F20101124_AABSOG taylor_k_Page_70.jp2
7d9f12aa3fe5b9a97d7aba2e69eee343
2ef078ec1737cd0912979e929bb5f665b457e7f5
105272 F20101124_AABSNT taylor_k_Page_34.jp2
e9637237dcca5d96f2fa5bbeb11a83ad
c8128c603802e2b2e521a2c17253cacaa1d39d69
104399 F20101124_AABSOH taylor_k_Page_71.jp2
4b82ed7ca1a2163dc1d0b796d63d5f19
7a7671e7d4237e858a168edc6c9ce190de04866a
106509 F20101124_AABSNU taylor_k_Page_37.jp2
a4a9eeb793d50c0723a184f4d05f915c
968ed38cc31c7bb02d3b9b094b2c2d03f505a606
108990 F20101124_AABSOI taylor_k_Page_72.jp2
2df63af8e2e4bc4b3d3403e654b0929f
d186094d303ad753f6a161e91cff889101352485
100892 F20101124_AABSNV taylor_k_Page_41.jp2
372a685602cfa091c0173bd0bc47e507
55f8c82ca7f7398240772703d33b6115b53c9f0c
108436 F20101124_AABSOJ taylor_k_Page_73.jp2
d2efe38da8b8d87e899876d8348f66da
b6e29bfb0ef5b83754cef26b23af750f91c5cdb4
81666 F20101124_AABSNW taylor_k_Page_44.jp2
720ebc621d710e69cd44ff4883d4485c
f927844e00ee823b1c621d351fca4f7858291019
110672 F20101124_AABSOK taylor_k_Page_74.jp2
883624866e46a2900296a8b146672897
4a48240d7d7443c2e9baa6148bd7601f25fb8a52



PAGE 1

PROMISE OR PERIL: HOW ELITE NEWSPAPERS FRAME STEM CELL RESEARCH By KIMBERLY RICE TAYLOR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

For Joan, a strong and beautiful woman who has always loved me, believed in me, and encouraged me to shoot for the st ars. Thanks for everything, Mom.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my chair, Debbie Treise, for recruiting me to this wonderful program. Who knew Id ever find a graduate program that could combine my disparate interests? She pushed me to make the most of the program and helped me to accomplish more than I thought was possible. She has been a phenomenal advocate and a pillar of strength, even when I stumbled. I thank Mike Weigold, for leading vibrant and engaging discussions in our public policy class. He challenged me to push past my existing assumptions on complex issues. I have never met anyone else so adept at playing devils advocate. I thank Robyn Goodman for her understanding, encouragement, and fabulous deadpan humor. In a stressful time like graduate school, the power of laughter cannot be underestimated. I also acknowledge that I couldnt have done this without my family. My sister and my mother, despite the fact that they are each thousands of miles away, have been amazing sources of strength for me. I thank them for their continued love and support. And finally, to my grandparents may they see the benefits of this promising technology within their lifetimes. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................6 Stem Cell Research.......................................................................................................6 Foundations and Terminology...............................................................................6 Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells.........................................................................7 Sources of Multipotent Stem Cells........................................................................8 Ethical Debate over Stem Cells.............................................................................8 Stakeholders in the Stem Cell Debate........................................................................10 Key Events in Stem Cell Research and Policy...........................................................13 Initial Policies on Stem Cell Research................................................................13 Election 2000 and Stem Cell Research...............................................................14 Election 2004 and Stem Cell Research...............................................................15 Stem Cell Research Abroad.................................................................................17 State Legislation..................................................................................................17 Tainted Cell Lines...............................................................................................18 Science and the Public................................................................................................19 Scientific Literacy...............................................................................................19 Public Perception of Science...............................................................................20 Science and the Media................................................................................................21 Media Coverage of Science Issues......................................................................21 Media Coverage of Biotechnology Issues...........................................................23 Framing.......................................................................................................................25 Framing Overview...............................................................................................25 Sources................................................................................................................28 Research Questions.....................................................................................................30 iv

PAGE 5

3 METHODS.................................................................................................................31 Mixed Methods...........................................................................................................31 Methodology...............................................................................................................32 Newspapers..........................................................................................................33 Time Frame.........................................................................................................33 Article Selection..................................................................................................34 Data Collection and Analysis..............................................................................35 Validity and Reliability.......................................................................................36 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................37 Frames Used...............................................................................................................37 The Uncertainty Frame....................................................................................38 The Battle/Debate Frame.................................................................................40 The Promise Frame..........................................................................................41 The Playing God Frame...................................................................................43 The Excess Embryos Frame.............................................................................44 The Economic Frame.......................................................................................44 Sources Quoted...........................................................................................................44 Scientists, Administrators and Science Policy Analysts.....................................45 Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups.......................................................................46 Bush Administration............................................................................................46 Religious Groups.................................................................................................46 Ethicists...............................................................................................................47 Republican Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research.................................................47 Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups.....................................................................47 Republican Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research...............................................48 Democratic Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research................................................48 Celebrities............................................................................................................48 Democratic Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research...............................................48 Other Sources......................................................................................................49 Definition and Characterization of Stem Cell Research.............................................49 Cloning.......................................................................................................................52 United States versus Other Nations............................................................................53 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................57 Frame Analysis...........................................................................................................57 Use of Uncertainty and Battle/Debate..........................................................58 Use of Other Frames............................................................................................61 Stakeholder Analysis...........................................................................................62 Embryonic Stem Cells vs. Adult Stem Cells.......................................................62 Cloning and Stem Cell Research.........................................................................63 United StatesGlobal Leader or Lagging Behind?..............................................64 Conclusions.................................................................................................................64 Limitations and Future Research................................................................................66 v

PAGE 6

APPENDIX A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET.............................................................68 B INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET......................70 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................83 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Primary frames sorted by publication ......................................................................37 2 Primary frames sorted by article type. .....................................................................38 3 Sources directly quoted within articles ....................................................................45 4 Definition and Characterization of stem cell research. ............................................50 5 Ethical/moral implications .......................................................................................51 6 Adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. ..................................................................52 7 References to human cloning. ..................................................................................52 8 References to other nations. .....................................................................................54 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication PROMISE OR PERIL: HOW ELITE NEWSPAPERS FRAME STEM CELL RESEARCH By Kimberly Rice Taylor August 2005 Chair: Debbie M. Treise Major Department: Mass Communication Stem cell research burst onto the national media scene in 1998. Subsequent coverage has described it as a promising new field tinged with both complexity and controversy. This study sought to understand how elite newspapers, namely The New York Times and The Washington Post, portrayed the issues surrounding stem cell research. A textual analysis was performed on 171 articles published from August 2000 through September 2001. An inductive analysis found that a frame of uncertainty dominated coverage. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Human embryonic stem cell research burst onto the national print media scene in November 1998, following an article published by Dr. James A. Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Thomson reported in the November 6, 1998, issue of Science that he and his research team had isolated and cloned human embryonic stem cells, making them the first scientists to do so (Thomson 1998). Stem cells are important because they can be seen as the utility and repair units of the body that serve a central function in the maintenance and regeneration of organs and tissues throughout life (Nisbet 2004, p. 131). Scientists have long thought of stem cells as a potential panacea in treating sickness and disease. By isolating these cells, Thomson and his team ended the scientific communitys 30-year quest for a reliable source of human embryonic stem cells and cracked open the debate over these promising but contentious cells. Prior to Thomsons publication, The New York Times and The Washington Post published just a handful of stories each year that featured stem cell research. Early stories on stem cell research focused primarily on stem cell transplantation and on umbilical cord blood. Stem cell transplantation is a therapy in which stem cells can be injected into patients, typically those suffering from leukemia, lymphoma and certain inherited blood disorders, to boost their immune response. Stem cell transplantation can also be used in gene therapy as a way to correct gene defects in patients suffering from certain genetic 1

PAGE 10

2 conditions. Umbilical cord blood banking garnered attention because cord blood is rich in stem cells and can be used in stem cell transplantation therapies. Earlier articles featured the pros and cons of banking cord blood, namely whether or not parents should consider this costly but perhaps life-saving medical technology to safeguard the future health of their family (Walker 1997; Chase 1998). Following Thomsons Science article in November 1998, media coverage of stem cell research surged; stem cell research has been highlighted in thousands of stories in The Washington Post and The New York Times alone. The projected promise of the technology has no doubt contributed to its media prominence. Embryonic stem cells have an infinite life span, making them ideal candidates for laboratory research on cellular development. Unlike regular body cells that divide a given number of times and then die, stem cells are immortal (Kolata 1995). This immortality makes them attractive candidates for disease therapies. Another desirable trait of embryonic stem cells is that they have the ability to develop into any cell in the body, a feature known as pluripotency, making them strong candidates for a number of disease therapies. Despite the promises of these all-purpose cells, they are not without drawbacks and controversy. The primary source for pluripotent stem cells is embryos, explaining why pluripotent cells have been dubbed embryonic stem cells in media coverage. This source of cells has caused quite a stir among conservative political and religious groups. The Catholic Church is perhaps the most vocal opponent of stem cell research originating from embryos. The Church teaches that all life, from the moment of conception, is sacred. Thus, using fertilized embryos for research is considered morally unacceptable. It should be noted that the Church sees no difference between naturally fertilized embryos

PAGE 11

3 and those generated in a lab via artificial insemination, nor does it condone the use of donated embryos that are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. Scientists have also developed a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer to generate pluripotent stem cells. By definition, these pluripotent stem cells are not derived from traditional embryos. The trouble is that the media refer to nearly all pluripotent stem cells as embryonic stem cells, regardless of the cells origin. This lack of clarity may lead to confusion among the public. Indeed, stem cell research is a complex and multi-faceted topic. Even individuals who are well-versed in science may struggle to make heads or tails of this situation. The nuances in terminology can be difficult to understand, especially since some of the terms (e.g., embryo) are already emotionally charged. Research has shown that Americans have a bipolar attitude about science and technology (Miller et al., 1997; Nisbet et al. 2002). Americans believe in sciences promise for new cures but at the same time feel uncomfortable with the pace of science and often distrust it. Given this disposition, it would not be surprising if the public were unable to come to consensus on the stem cell debate. One way to help the public reach consensus on an issue is through media coverage of that issue (Miller and Reichert 2001). Science stories rank among the best read in newspapers, on par with sports stories, reflecting the publics fascination with science (Rensberger 1997). A recent study found that close to 50% of Americans were very interested in science discoveries and new technologies, 70% in medical discoveries, and 52% in environmental issues (Rogers 1999). Indeed, the public relies heavily on print media for information on science, health and technology topics: For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the press. They understand science less through direct experience or past education than through

PAGE 12

4 the filter of journalistic language and imagery. The media are their only contact with what is going on in rapidly changing scientific and technical fields, as well as a major source of information about the implications of these changes for their lives (Nelkin 1995, p. 2). The print news media are also important because they set the agenda for science coverage in other outlets. Newspapers are the front lines of science communication, the places where most science stories show up first, before they appear in magazines, long before theyre in books, usually years before television documentaries cover them (Rensberger 1997). Thus, newspaper coverage of stem cell research plays a critical role in shaping the evolution of this topic. Journalists must portray the issue clearly and completely so that people can be well informed and come to their own conclusions on the topic. Journalists portrayal of the topic can have both an individual and a collective impactl; public opinion has been shown to influence public policy and governmental funding of science issues. Public opinion on any given topic can be influenced by a number of variables, including media coverage of the topic. The way media present, or frame, an issue can influence readers opinions about that issue (Iyengar 1991). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how The New York Times and The Washington Post, both recognized as trendsetters in the media realm, have framed the issue of stem cell research. These elite papers have the potential to influence the national media agenda, suggesting that they are but one step away from influencing public opinion. As the dominant newspaper in the nations capital, The Washington Post has the ability to influence general readers, as well as policymakers. Stem cell research, given its potential for disease therapies, is a critical topic facing American society. Framing studies on the elite news media can help complete the picture

PAGE 13

5 of how the media might influence public opinion about stem cell research, and subsequently stem cell research policy. This qualitative study builds on existing framing studies of stem cell research that have taken a quantitative approach (Nisbet et al. 2003) by providing insight into the rich, descriptive terminology used in media coverage of the debate.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Stem Cell Research Foundations and Terminology For decades, scientists studying human development did so via animals. This early research revealed a new class of cells called stem cells, which are the bodys fundamental building block. Because they are undifferentiated, these cells are capable of developing into a number of cell types in the body. It should be noted that there is a range of usefulness among stem cells. This usefulness is sometimes referred to as plasticity, that is a cells ability to transform into other cell or tissue types. Pluripotent stem cells can differentiate into any other cell type, making them a favorite among scientists for developing new therapies. Most pluripotent stem cells lines have been derived from embryos, hence the term embryonic stem cells. Multipotent stem cells also hold great promise, though are more restricted in how they can develop. These cells have differentiated past the level of pluripotency into a specialized state (Anderson, Gage and Weissman 2001). Although animal pluripotent stem cells had been isolated many years prior, it wasnt until 1998 that researchers were able to isolate and grow human pluripotent stem cells in the laboratory. Subsequent work has shown that these cells have the capability of developing into nearly any cell or tissue type in the body, hinting at possibilities for therapeutic applications. 6

PAGE 15

7 Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells Pluripotent stem cells come namely from embryonic or fetal tissue. Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are retrieved from a group of cells known as the inner cell mass (part of the blastocyst) about four to five days after an embryos fertilization. These cells can differentiate from their current unspecialized state into virtually any type of cell or tissue. The first possible source of such cells is surplus embryos that are a by-product of in vitro fertilization (IVF) labs. The second potential source of ES cells is from embryos generated in the lab by uniting donated eggs and sperm. Another source of pluripotent stem cells is the embryonic germ (reproductive) cells that can be taken from aborted fetuses. Under the right laboratory conditions, embryonic stem cells can reproduce indefinitely, a trait not shared by adult stem cells. Pluripotent stem cells can also be derived through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also known as therapeutic cloning. Here, genetic material from a regular body cell (a somatic cell) is transplanted into an egg cell (a germ cell) that has had all of its genetic information removed. This fusion creates a hybrid cell that can be induced to behave like a fertilized egg (Hall 2004, p.2). This technique is often referred to as cloning because the resulting cell is genetically identical to the original body cell. However, it is important to note that no embryos (i.e. a union of sperm and egg) are used in this process. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the technique used by the South Korean researchers whose work appeared in the media spotlight in early 2004 and triggered a renewed call for a ban on what is known as reproductive cloning (Hwang, Ryu et al. 2004). Opponents fear that these hybrid embryos could be grown into full-fledged human beings. However, scientists argue that the technology is not that advanced. The hybrid embryos differ from normal embryos and

PAGE 16

8 can be riddled with genetic abnormalities, giving them little if any potential to ever develop into a normal human being (Hall 2004, p.2). Sources of Multipotent Stem Cells Multipotent stem cells are cells that the media refers to primarily as adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found in specialized tissue such as the blood or brain and can yield specialized cell types, though in a much more limited fashion from embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can typically replicate for the life of the organism but do not share the same infinite reproducibility of embryonic stem. It should be noted that adult stem cells need not be derived from adults. Stem cells derived from cord blood (i.e. fetal umbilical cord blood) are multipotent, not pluripotent, and thus can be termed adult stem cells. They do, however, have more potential than adult stem cells derived from mature tissues. At this point, adult stem cells are the only type of stem cells that have been used in human disease therapies. Scientists have used stem cells derived from bone marrow in transplantation therapies for over 40 years. Stem cells used in stem cell transplantations are called hematopoetic stem cells since they are derived from the blood-forming cells in the bone marrow. Despite the inherent differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research, newspaper coverage does not always discern between the two. This may serve to complicate the publics understanding and attitudes toward the already charged discussions about stem cell research. Ethical Debate over Stem Cells The debate over stem cell research hinges on competing facts and values that span the multiple arenas of science, ethics, religion, business, politics and

PAGE 17

9 administration (Fassi 2002, p. 7). The stem cell debate incorporates elements from the abortion debate, the cloning debate, the fetal tissue debate, the transplant debate, the gene therapy debate, the animal rights debate and even a debate about human longevity (National Public Radio 2001). 1 Although the topic is multifaceted, major contention seems to circle around a number of ethical and moral dilemmas, namely when life begins and ends, as well as when is it acceptable to compromise life. Given what is at stake, it is not surprising that the debate has been so prolonged and so heated: when the search for balanced reasonableness and respect for human dignity are interpreted through multiple and competing perspectives in the development of policy, the conflict persists and is rarely resolved (Fassi 2000, p.2) The American Association for the Advancement of Science sums up the various sides quite eloquently in their online briefing on stem cell research: Opponents of ES cell research hold that human life begins as soon as an egg is fertilized, and they consider a human embryo to be a human being. They therefore consider any research that necessitates the destruction of a human embryo to be morally abhorrent. Proponents of ES cell research, meanwhile, point out that in the natural reproductive process, human eggs are often fertilized but fail to implant in the uterus. A fertilized egg, they argue, while it may have the potential for human life, cannot be considered equivalent to a human being until it has at least been successfully implanted in a woman's uterus (accessed March 13, 2005, http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells ). This is much the same controversy that has swirled around the issue of abortion. The American Life League sees the embryo as the tiniest person, worth standing up for and defending (Toner 2001). Opponents are concerned not only about the use of existing embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, but also about the creation of embryos expressly for research purposes. Pope John Paul II refers to the latter as an evil akin to 1 This statement is excerpted from National Public Radios Talk of the Nation/Science Friday program which aired on March 2, 2001. The statement was made by Glenn McGee, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and editor in chief of the American Journal for Bioethics.

PAGE 18

10 euthanasia and infanticide (Stanley 2001). President Bush said that he recoils at the idea of creating life for our own convenience (Charo 2001). Additional concerns exist that this will only be the beginning of a Frankenscience that ultimately will lead to cloning humans. Proponents extend their arguments to include embryos generated in fertility clinics. Many of these artificially created embryos are inviable and will never result in life. In an effort to boost their chances of success, hopeful parents often end up with more frozen embryos than they will have implanted. Proponents argue that these should be available for embryonic stem cell research since most of these artificially created embryos will otherwise be discarded. Certain opponents of embryonic stem cell research including the Catholic Church have argued that embryonic stem cell research should be abandoned in favor of adult stem cell research. These opponents maintain that adult stem cells hold just as much promise as do embryonic stem cells. Most scientists, however, disagree citing recent scientific articles that have shown that adult stem cells lack the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. In the broadest sense, the discussion about stem cell research can be reduced to the importance of human life, whether it be the life of an unborn embryo or the life of an adult suffering from a life-threatening disease: The debate is crucially connected to emotionally charged and deeply held values about the creation of, respect for, and amelioration of human life (Fassi 2002, p. 3). Stakeholders in the Stem Cell Debate As was suggested above, a number of stakeholders are involved in the conflict, and they are all vying for their voices to be heard. Stakeholder groups that oppose embryonic

PAGE 19

11 stem cell research include conservative political and religious groups. Opponents from the Republican Party have included Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts, Sam Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon and Tom Delay; Interest groups have included the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council (Nisbet et al. 2003). Among the various religious groups opposing stem cell research, Catholic interests have been cited most frequently in media coverage (Nisbet, Brossard and Kroepsch 2003). The Catholic Church has a staunch position against any research that involves the creation of or the taking of a human life. This rules out all forms of embryonic stem cell research, including research using somatic-cell nuclear transfer. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2001) urged Congress to ban embryonic stem cell research altogether, citing that the estimated promise of the technology did not outweigh the realities behind it: In his great novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky raised the question whether it would be right to build a world without human suffering if "it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny creature" such as an innocent child to achieve that end. Each of us must answer that ultimate question in the depths of his or her own conscience. The claim that destructive embryo research will achieve such a utopian end is, we believe, a hollow promise. In the meantime, however, the killing will be quite real (USCCB 2001). In an interesting twist, several otherwise-conservative politicians voiced their support for stem cell research. Former senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Strom Thurmond (S.C.) were both ardent pro-life Republicans, yet both believed that embryonic stem cell research was worth investing in. Other GOP supporters featured by the media have included Bill Frist, Connie Mack, John McCain, and Arlen Specter (Nisbet et al. 2003). The most vocal supporters of stem cell research are scientists, patients and their families, non-profit patient advocacy groups, and pro-industry advocacy groups. These

PAGE 20

12 advocacy groups include the Coalition for Medical Research, Patients Cure, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (Nisbet et al. 2003). Celebrities have played a strong role in voicing their support for stem cell research. For example, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has spoken out in favor of stem cell research citing that it may yield a cure for Alzheimers, the disease which plagued her late husband. She has lent her name to various fundraising events for stem cell research, including an initiative to raise $20 million for the stem cell research via the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Actor Christopher Reeve died in October 2004 but not before expressing his overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. He believed that embryonic stem cell research might hold the key to potential therapies for paralyzed Americans like himself. He maintained that embryonic stem cell research could be conducted in an ethical and moral fashion: You really don't have an ethical problem because you're actually saving lives by using cells that are going to the garbage," Reeve said. "I just don't see how that's immoral or unethical. I really don't" (CNN.com 2002). Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinsons disease, is another celebrity who supports stem cell research. He appeared in television ads during the 2004 election urging voters to consider the benefits of expanding stem cell research policy: George Bush says we can wait. I say lives are at stake and it's time for leadership (Associated Press 2004). Many scientists have collectively made their voice heard through the Union of Concerned Scientists, a left-leaning advocacy group. They issued a statement in 2001 urging President Bush to promote federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The union has since accused the Bush administration of distorting scientific findings and manipulating experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political

PAGE 21

13 beliefs (Elias 2004). Over 6,000 researchers have signed on and voiced their concern over the administrations misuse of science, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences. Key Events in Stem Cell Research and Policy Initial Policies on Stem Cell Research The first major policy event specifically targeting stem cell research occurred following a crucial advance made in 1994 at Harvard Medical School (Kolata 1995). The scientists had refined a simple technique that could replace the existing cumbersome method for isolating stem cells from blood. This simplified method was expected to open the door for many new laboratories to undertake stem cell research. It also meant that new gene therapies might not be far behind. Congress attached an appropriations rider attached to the 1996 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (which included allocations for the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH). The rider became known as the Dickey amendment after the bills original author, Former Representative Jay Dickey (R-Ark.),and has been retained by Congress every year since 1996. The Dickey Amendment banned federal funding for research that destroyed embryos, but it made no provisions related to research conducted with private funds. Thomsons groundbreaking research was conducted on excess embryos originally conceived for in vitro fertilization that were donated anonymously. Since the research focused on human embryos, it did not qualify for federal funding. Instead, Thomsons research was financed through private funds from the Geron Corporation of Menlo Park, Calif. The research caused quite a stir, with the scientific community heralding

PAGE 22

14 Thomsons results as a major technical achievement with great importance for human biology (Gearhart 1998, p. 1061). Shortly after Thomsons research was published, President Clinton requested a review of the issues surrounding stem cell research. In September 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Committee issued a report, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, which suggested a legal reinterpretation of the federal funding restrictions contained within the Dickey Amendment. The report concluded that the federal government could fund research on human ES cells, provided that private funds were used to derive the stem cells from embryos left over from fertility treatments. By December 1999, NIH had released draft guidelines allowing federally funded research on ES cells derived in the private sector and on August 25, 2000, NIH released its final guidelines and solicited applications for its first ES cell research grants. Election 2000 and Stem Cell Research Stem cell research was highlighted throughout the coverage of the 2000 presidential election with Republic presidential nominee George W. Bush declaring that he opposed federal funding for any stem cell research that destroyed human embryos. Clinton, both through his words and policy actions, supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Following Bushs inauguration in February, six months followed before any policy changes were issued. The press highlighted what they called the presidents continued indecision on the issue, until ultimately on August 9, 2001, Bush announced in a prime-time television address that he would allow federal funding of research on existing embryonic stem cell lines. This policy meant that no new cell lines could be derived

PAGE 23

15 using federal funds, thus ensuring that the government would not be responsible for any new embryos destroyed for the sake of stem cell research. On August 14, 2002, the National Institutes of Health released a list of 78 stem cell lines that qualified for federal research funding according to Bushs criteria: the stem cells must have been removed from the embryo prior to August 9, 2001, the date the president first outlined these criteria; .the embryo used in deriving the stem cells must no longer have been viable, i.e. it could not be grown into a human; the embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes; the embryo must have been collected with the informed consent of the parents; and no financial compensation was provided. However, the list was met with immediate criticism. Initial reports indicated that only about 16 of the 78 eligible cell lines were available for distribution, with only a handful making it into the hands of researchers. The most recent statistics from NIH were released in the third quarter of 2004 and stated that 22 stem cell lines were available for study by federally funded researchers. Election 2004 and Stem Cell Research Although stem cell research was not one of the galvanizing issues in Election 2004, it did play a role in several of the debates and addresses. Senator Kerry, the opposing candidate, primarily asserted that Bushs existing policy would not be sufficient and that Bush was not acknowledging the realities of stem cell research, while Bush maintained that he had zeroed in on a moral way to support stem cell research. For example, during the second presidential debate the candidates were asked about the wisdom of funding embryonic stem cells in research, given that the only human disease therapies to-date have arisen from adult stem cell research. Kerry responded, acknowledging the morality behind the question but maintaining that scientists can

PAGE 24

16 conduct ethically guided embryonic stem cell research by using embryos that are leftover from in vitro fertilization procedures: We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that, they're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen. And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing some kind of a paraplegic or quadriplegic or a spinal cord injury, anything -that's the nature of the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way. And the President's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab it (Office of the Press Secretary 2004). Kerry closed out his remarks in the second debate by returning to oft-heard criticisms about the Bushs approved stem cell lines: But let me tell you, point-blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70, there are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated (Office of the Press Secretary 2004). Bush defended his stance, noting that he was the first president to ever allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He emphasized that we must heed the potential implications of stem cell research, noting that he took the approach he did out of a respect for ethics and morality: But I think -I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics. So is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life (ibid). While on the campaign trail, First Lady Laura Bush also played up Bushs support of embryonic stem cell research. In cities across the nation she expressed her pride that her husband was the first president to authorize federal funding for stem cell research and to

PAGE 25

17 express that President Bush looks forward to future medical breakthroughs via stem cell research. Stem Cell Research Abroad In February 2004, researchers from South Korea published an article in the online issue of the journal Science revealing that they had created about 30 human blastocysts using the somatic-cell nuclear transplant method. The publication reactivated concerns over stem cell research, with opponents citing that this research was one step away from cloning humans for reproductive purposes. Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of President Bushs Council on Bioethics, and many others called for a complete ban on cloning, regardless of purpose, in order to sidestep any slippery slope that might occur if therapeutic cloning were left legal. Korea is not the only nation that appears to have permissive policies on stem cell research regulation. Counties such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, China, India, Israel, Australia and New Zealand all have policies that explicitly allow embryonic stem cell research. In nearly all cases where therapeutic cloning (i.e. embryonic stem cell research) is allowed, reproductive cloning has been banned. State Legislation Although the U.S. federal government has restricted funding for human embryonic stem cell research, individual states have the right to pass laws permitting human embryonic stem cell research. This means that states can subsidize the cost for the establishment of new human embryonic stem cell lines or research on cell lines that are currently ineligible for federal funding. The voters of California were the first to act on this work-around. In November 2004, voters passed Proposition 71, which provided for the establishment of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The

PAGE 26

18 initiative is expected to dole out $300 million per year for 10 years toward stem cell research, including the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. This dollar amount marks a ten-fold increase over the money allocated for stem cell research by the federal government. Since California passed Proposition 71, lawmakers in other states have taken up the charge, with a total of Wisconsin, New York and New Jersey have introduced similar proposals. Tainted Cell Lines Kerrys predictions about tainted cell lines were confirmed within three months. In January 2005, researchers at the University of California at San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies reported that all federally approved human embryonic stem cell lines were tainted with a foreign molecule from mice. This could mean that any potential stem cell therapies tested in humans could fail because the human body would reject the stem cells as foreign (Martin, Muotri et al. 2005). One of the papers authors, Dr. Ajit Varki, believes that this poses a dire problem for U.S. researchers, who depend primarily on federal funding to support their work. If none of these funding issues and legal issues and ethical and moral issues existed, then it would make sense to start over, he said (Kaplan 2005, p. 1). His comment suggests that the government should rekindle the debate over whether the existing federal policy on funding embryonic stem cell research is sufficient or whether the United States is missing a key opportunity. Despite growing doubt over the efficacy of the federally approved cell lines, President Bush reaffirmed his position in his State of the Union Address on Feb. 2, 2005: I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and

PAGE 27

19 sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical (Bush 2005). Thus, it seems unlikely under the current administration that any new policies will be developed on the federal funding of embryonic stem cells. Science and the Public Scientific Literacy The term science literacy originally was coined by Waterman (1960) and represents the publics understanding of science. Science literacy goes beyond the ability to define key scientific terms; it extends to understanding how science actually works and how science can influence our daily lives. Historically, Americans have not been able to satisfactorily explain what it means to study something scientifically (Withey 1959; Miller 1987). It is believed that individuals who are scientifically literate will be able to tell good science from bad science and to weigh the competing claims in science discussions (Bodmer 1985). Understanding the whys and hows behind science is growing increasingly important. We live in a world of increasing technological and scientific complexity in our daily lives. The public needs to understand science in order to cope adequately (Waterman 1960). However, it is not enough to know science, for example basic facts such as the speed of light or the density of water. The public needs a thorough understanding of science concepts and the methodology behind scientific research. LaFollette (1995) wrote that effective modern citizenship demands a higher level of knowing about science (p. 235). Additionally, the degree to which everyday Americans understand science can affect our nations research agenda. Over the years, it has been demonstrated that the

PAGE 28

20 degree of public understanding of science largely influences government support and policy. Some authors have argued that support of scientific programs depends less on a programs own merits than on public attention and understanding. Thus, the publics science literacy in turn influences scientific progress. The National Science Boards Science and Engineering Indicators survey is seen as the most consistent indicator of science literacy. The first survey was conducted in 1979 and it has been conducted about every two years afterward with the most recent results reported in 2002. Less than 15% of those surveyed felt well informed about science and technology issues, while 30% felt poorly informed (National Science Board 2002). Public Perception of Science Analysis of the NSB survey data revealed that the American public possesses two competing attitude constructs (Miller et al., 1997; Nisbet et al. 2002). The first construct shows that Americans are uncertain about science and technology, citing concerns about the pace of change and a sense that science and technology pose conflicts with traditional values or belief systems (Nisbet et al, p. 588). The second construct reflects that Americans believe in the promise of science and technology, and believe research can yield useful results and products for society and provide future benefits to society (Miller et al, 1997; Nisbet et. al., p. 588). Later studies revealed the same diagnosis, stating that an inverse relationship exists between knowledge and doubt of new scientific technologies (Miller and Kimmel 2001). Despite the contentious debate over stem cells, the American public seems to favor the research, both embryonic and adult. Two polls conducted during the 2004 election showed a majority support for embryonic stem cell research among registered voters. Time wrote that 69% of the 1,131 adults surveyed were in favor of using discarded

PAGE 29

21 embryos for stem cell research, and that 50% felt that federal money should be used (Time 2004). A Newsweek poll looked at the topic from a more general perspective and found that 50% of the registered voters surveyed said they were for stem cell research. One key element that has been repeated in the discussion of embryonic stem cells is the source of the stem cells. Advocates say that leftover embryos from fertility clinics pose a great opportunity. A study conducted in Sweden showed that couples who were pursuing infertility treatment were overwhelmingly (92%) in favor of donating their excess embryos for stem cell research rather than simply discarding them. Although the culture and values are obviously different in Sweden than in the United States, this seems like an encouraging result for those in support of embryonic stem cell research. A similar study could be conducted here in the United States to gauge whether support would be as strong. Science and the Media Media Coverage of Science Issues The public can learn about science from a number of sources including science classes, science museums, and interpersonal sources, but the most impressive source is the media (Nelkin 1995; Nisbet et al. 2002). Newspapers cover more science stories than any other form of media communication (Rensberger 1997). Not surprisingly then, newspapers have been shown to be the publics primary source of science, technology and health information, if not their sole source of information and continuing education about science (Rensberger 1997, p. 8). Nelkin (1995) elegantly describes the importance of print media in communicating science to the public: Science writers, in effect, are brokers, framing social reality for their readers and shaping the public consciousness about science-related events. Their selection of news about science and technology sets the agenda for public policy. Their

PAGE 30

22 representation of science news lays the foundation for personal attitudes and public actions. They are often our only source of information about the scientific and technical choices that significantly affect our work, our health, and our lives (p. 161). The media can help the public become aware of pressing social issues via its agenda-setting role. Although many scholars have written about agenda setting, its roots trace back to the oft-cited 1973 paper by McCombs and Shaw. The authors introduced the idea that the medias decision to cover an issue affects the publics perception of the salience of that issue (McCombs and Shaw 1973). The media no doubt helped the public become aware of stem cell research. Since the majority of Americans would never so much as pick up an issue of Science, they would have had no way of knowing about Thomsons breakthrough had it not been featured by the mass media. It is clear that the media serve a crucial role in telling the public which science issues are important to think about. However, the extent to which the media influence the publics opinions about specific scientific topics is less definite. Researchers have found an inverse correlation between newspaper use and reservations about science (Nisbet et al. 2002). That is, individuals who read the newspaper are more likely to feel favorably about scientific issues. Most daily newspapers and all elite newspapers already include a certain amount of science-focused coverage. In fact, newspapers carry more science news than more than any other mass communication media (Rensberger 1997). However, researchers have differing opinions on the extent of media effects on public opinion. Regardless of the extent to which newspapers sway peoples opinions about science topics, it is clear that newspapers remain the publics dominant source for science information. Thus, it is worthwhile to examine media coverage of science topics in order

PAGE 31

23 to fully understand what information the public is receiving about particular scientific issues. Media Coverage of Biotechnology Issues Media scholars have looked at how the print media have framed a number of scientific topics including environmental issues, genetically modified foods, nuclear energy, etc. However, this study will focus solely on the framing of stem cell research. Much of the elite print medias initial coverage of stem cell research attentively focused on the potential risks of stem cell research, namely the destruction of human embryos. Stem cell research is certainly not the first risky scientific topic covered by the press, nor is risk a new concept to our society: Risks to health, safety and the environment abound in the world and people cope as best they can. But before action can be taken to control, reduce or eliminate risks, decisions must be made about which risks are important and which risks can be safely ignored (Covello and Johnson 1987, p. vii). Risk has been a common element in media coverage of other biotechnology issues, as has uncertainty (Bartels 2002; Priest 2001). Priest makes three assumptions regarding media coverage of scientific debates: Scientific futures are uncertain, the public has a legitimate stake in defining public policy for science, and this role is better filled by an educated than an ignorant citizenry (Priest 2001, 100-101).

PAGE 32

24 In the genetically modified food debate, the media helped influence the publics general acceptance of genetically modified foods through its coverage of the issue. Although the media did include elements of the publics skepticism over genetically modified foods, the media gave greater attention to positive messages from stakeholders in favor of genetically modified foods: By overrepresenting the large-institution point of view and the ostensibly monolithic character of U.S. public opinion, media accounts probably helped to suppress the visibility of what dissent existed (Priest 2001, p. 61). Another key element in the medias coverage of genetic technology has been its comparison of international policies. Journalists have focused on U.S policy versus those of other nations like Italy, Israel, India, and Great Britain (Ten Eyck and Williment 2003). The concern has been that if other countries develop more permissive regulatory policies, then scientists may emigrate from the United States to pursue their work in those countries. Journalists have echoed this concern in their coverage of stem cell research, citing that current U.S. policies may lead to a potential brain drain to nations such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, India or Singapore (Brush 2005: Regaldo, McGinley and Lueck 2001; and USA Today 2003). This brain drain facet only complicates the stem cell debate in the eyes of readers. In multifaceted debates such as this, the media can help the public come to decisions by providing information about an issue. Information may include context and background on the issue, as well as viewpoints of various stakeholders. In the instance of stem cell research, involved groups have included the scientific community, federal government, political groups, patient advocacy groups, and religious groups. The most revealing look at how print media have portrayed stem cell research was conducted by Nisbet, Brossard and Kroepsch (2003). This study relied on the mass media

PAGE 33

25 theories of agenda building and frame building (i.e. agenda setting and framing) to study how the media have influenced the debate over stem cell research. Using quantitative methodology, the authors found that the stem cell debate relied on familiar storytelling themes and dramatic elements that helped push is to the top of the media agenda during the summer of 2001 (p. 44). Coverage focused mainly on the competing interests inherent in the debate, namely tradition versus progress: If on one side of the debate was the image of a mad scientist experimenting on human embryos, on the other side was a notion of a religious zealot impeding scientific and social progress (Nisbet et al. 2003, p. 44). With competing viewpoints clamoring to be heard, the important questions to be asked are, Whose voice rises above all others? and, How will this affect public opinion and policymaking? The frequency with which stakeholders are quoted and which voices dominate are a key element in framing. Framing Framing Overview Sociologist Erving Goffman is credited with coining the term framing (Goffman, 1974). It is important to note that the concept of framing has not always been clear in the literature. Indeed, Entmans well-known paper refers to framing as a scattered conceptualization (Entman 1993, p. 51). In a more recent publication, Scheufele (1999) noted that the term framing has been used repeatedly to label similar but distinctly different approaches (p.103). Hertog and McLeod note that although framing analysis has been accepted as a useful research tool for several decades, it is far from being an exact science. A wide array of theoretical approaches and methods are utilized and the field has yet to settle on a core theory or even a basic set of propositions, nor has a widely accepted methodological approach emerged (Hertog and McLeod 2001, p. 139).

PAGE 34

26 Researchers should take care to describe where their methods and approaches fit within framings four-cell typology: media versus audience frames and frames as independent versus dependent variables (Scheufele 1999, p.108). This study is concerned with media frames as a dependent variable, namely how journalists use frames and what frames dominate coverage of stem cell research. It should also be noted that framing and frame theory are not equitable in the eyes of many researchers, and that a distinction can be made between the two terms (Roefs 1998). This study is concerned primarily with the use of framing as a research tool. Although the exploration of frame theory is valid, this study will not venture into such territory. According to Goffman (1974), framing explains how readers use existing mental frameworks and expectations to make sense of everyday social situations. This sense-making element is critical, as frames can help shape a readers thoughts about a given issue. This concept is echoed by Bridges and Nelson (2000), who wrote, the way an issue is presented the frame especially through the media, can affect public perceptions of the issue (p. 100). Reese (2001) further characterized frames by stating that they are organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world (p.140). Salience is a key element in framing. Entman (1993) is widely respected for his contributions regarding salience in framing research: To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (p. 56).

PAGE 35

27 Frames reduce issues to the familiar, and they can help the public to understand new and otherwise complex issues by capitalizing on widely accepted dogmas and shared perspectives. This can be especially useful in coverage of biotechnology issues, where readers may get bogged down in technical language. By reducing the story to recognizable elements, journalists can help readers to understand the issue. Hertog and McLeod (2001) characterized the importance of frames and framing in social process, especially in defining and channeling social controversy (p. 139). Framing methods can be distilled to such basic elements as the language that journalists use to describe events (Edelman 1988). Indeed, the use of baby versus fetus signals a very different approach to the topic of abortion (Hertog and McLeod 2001). We are a culture that relies heavily on language. Yet complex scientific issues pose a great challenge to the public, who often cannot comprehend the associated terminology. Framing can help bring the reader onto a common playing field: All communication is dependent upon shared meaning among communicators. The speaker and the audience must approach words, icons, ideas, gestures, and so on in an identical fashion in order to communicate. The greater the difference in their individual understanding of symbols, the less able they are to communicate (Hertog and McLeod 2001, p. 141). However, this quest to establish shared meaning can cause a story to change from a catchy tune to a broken record. Journalists tend to revert to familiar stories and themes when framing science stories (Bennett 2001). Nisbet et al. (2003) described this scenario in greater detail: When an event or new issue taps familiar themes from previous dramatic stories, journalists turn to these previously used story lines to recast actors and events in familiar relationships around the emerging issue (p. 43). For example, the stem cell debate has been framed in similar ways to the debates over abortion and in vitro fertilization, since all three have been framed as hinging on the

PAGE 36

28 moral question of when life begins. Framing of the stem cell debate also has echoed the debate over genetic engineering, where voices have questioned whether scientists are playing God (Charo 2001). The framing of news stories also is influenced by the journalists choice of sources. In fact, source selection can be seen as one of the most important dimensions of framing (Zoch and VanSlyke Turk 1998, p. 762). Shoemaker and Reese further iterate this point: Sources have a tremendous effect on mass media content, because journalists cant include in their news reports what they dont know(sources) may also influence the news in subtle ways by providing the context within which all other information is evaluatedand by monopolizing the journalists time so that they dont have an opportunity to seek out sources with alternative views (Shoemaker and Reese, 1991, p. 150). Sources Although journalists strive for neutrality in their work, studies have shown that journalists tend to favor certain types of sources. In some cases, journalists will forgo sources whose opinions on an issue contrast with their own (Powers and Fico 1991). Research has overwhelmingly shown that journalists favor certain elite sources, including police, government officials and scientists. Journalists often tap elite sources because they are easily identifiable and accessible, tend to be articulate, can provide a large amount of information with little effort (on both the sources and journalists part), and are typically seen by readers as valid and reliable (Zoch and VanSlyke Turk 1998). In scientific debates, the extent to which readers trust sources is critical: reputation is the crucial currency in scientific debate (Durant 1993, p. 136). The concept of source validity is also important because if readers trust a source then they may believe what a source says to be true. In short, what

PAGE 37

29 sources say about an issue can elicit attitude and belief changes among readers (Slater and Rouner 1996). Specifically, direct quotes can have a strong influence on reader opinion about an issue. Gibson and Zillman have reported that readers exposed to a given opinion via a direct quote were likely to echo that opinion and that readers give greater weight to information contained in direct quotes than in paraphrased quotes (Gibson and Zillman 1993; Gibson and Zillman 1998). This evidence makes it important to examine direct quotes within framing studies such as this one. After considering these facts, it is then not surprising that journalists favor elite sources, as the practice can provide them with a way to easily inform and potentially influence readers. Hovlands work from the 1950s supports journalists inclination to use elite sources by demonstrating that that the main elements influencing source credibility among readers trace to the sources trustworthiness and expertise (Hovland and Weiss 1951). However, journalists reliance on elite sources, especially those in government, medicine, and law, can present a top-heavy view of society. This practice can give scientists a great deal of control over representations of uncertainty (Dunwoody 1999, p. 63). Also, by opting to quote expert sources rather than do their own background research and investigative reporting, journalists may be depriving readers of key information on a topic. (Ericson, Baranek, and Chan 1989; Wilkie 1996). Journalists use of elite sources can influence the framing and agenda setting of specific issues (Gans 1979; Nisbet et al. 2003). For example, Andsager and Smiley (1998) stated that (t)he news media tend to rely on frames that the most influential policy actors provide, which will often render large institutions the most influential

PAGE 38

30 policy actors (p. 183). Journalists reliance on elite sources can have a strong influence on policy because when the resonance process is complete, one frame comes to dominate debate, and decision makers set public policy to conform to it (Miller and Reichert 2001, p. 113). Research Questions One primary research question was asked: how have the elite newspapers covered embryonic stem cell research? According to Creswell (1998), beginning with a single problem for the researcher to explore is a critical directive of qualitative research. From there, sub-questions can evolve. Secondary questions looked at sublevels of this main question: with what frequency are key stakeholders cited; to what degree are issues regarding embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells differentiated; how frequently is the process of human cloning cited alongside stem cell research, and is it differentiated as a separate issue or lumped together; and how frequently are stem cell policies of other nations mentioned or compared to U.S. policy?

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Mixed Methods Two broad approaches to academic research traditionally are recognized qualitative and quantitative. The two methodologies differ in many ways, but the issue goes deeper than to count or not to count (Trumbo 2004, p. 418). Quantitative research operates mainly from the standpoint of taking an existing theory or hypothesis and testing it. Although quantitative research methods are used in the bulk of published academic research, qualitative research is no less valuable: Qualitative research shares good company with the most rigorous quantitative research, and it should not be viewed as an easy substitute for a statistical or quantitative study (Creswell 1998). Qualitative research is a process of making large claims from small matters (Carey 1975). Qualitative researchers seek to preserve and analyze content, rather than subject it to mathematical or other formal transformations (Lindlof and Taylor 2002, p. 18). In effect, qualitative research takes a macro view, describing the nuances and fine details of an issue in an attempt to understand fully what is going on. Qualitative textual analysis seeks to elucidate the meaning behind media messages and can reveal subtle thematic shifts (Newman 1998). In short, quantitative researchers work with a few variables and many cases, whereas qualitative researchers work with a few cases and many variables (Creswell 1998). Qualitative and quantitative methodologies have long existed as two distinct methodologies, although neither one is recognized as better than the other (Newman 31

PAGE 40

32 1998). Despite their inherent differences, the two approaches can be quite complementary (Carpenter 1998). In designing studies, researchers should not adopt an either-or mindset. Because each approach offers its own advantages to the researcher, a combinatorial approach can be quite useful and can be more useful than either approach would be on its own (Carpenter 1998). Perhaps not surprisingly, a third genre dubbed mixed methods is gaining increased acceptance, and researchers in a variety of social sciences are touting the benefits of this relatively new approach (Todd et al 2004; Tashakkorie and Teddlie 2003). Following this trend and seeking to draw on the advantages of the two traditional methodologies, this study relied on a mixed-method design. From a quantitative standpoint, the study sought to understand the frequency with which journalists used key terms and concepts. In an attempt to paint a more detailed picture, qualitative methods were employed to explore and further characterize elite print media coverage of embryonic stem cell research. This component of the study followed Creswells guidelines: 1) begin with a research question that seeks to explore what is going on; 2) focus on a topic that needs to be explored; and 3) present a detailed view of the topic (Creswell 1998). Methodology This study examined the way in which issues surrounding stem cell research have been portrayed in two elite newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post. The study focused on a critical time span in the history of stem cell research, encompassing the first major policy decisions for this nascent field.

PAGE 41

33 Newspapers Newspapers were selected over other media because they are the publics dominant source for science knowledge (Blum and Knudson 1997). The New York Times and The Washington Post were examined since they both are clarion trendsetters in the national media scene (Nelkin 1995). Additionally, they are regarded as key publications for national policymakers (Gans 1979). The issue of stem cell research is one that has national and even international importance, so The New York Times was selected for its reputation, breadth and overall depth of readership. Additionally, The New York Times is well known for providing ample coverage of science and technology issues via its weekly Science Times section. The Washington Post was selected for its reputation and prestige, as well as for its attention to political and legislative issues. As the predominant paper in Washington, D.C., policymakers are apt to read it and to be influenced in how they respond to current issues. Time Frame The coverage time frame was August 25, 2000, through September 19, 2001. The start date coincided with the Clinton administrations reevaluation of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The study end date extended one month past the Bush administrations August 19, 2001, announcement that it would permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research conducted on stem cell lines already in existence. This month-long period following the announcement allowed inclusion of articles that discussed the controversy over the limited number of existing ES cell lines, their relative viability and the subsequent determination that adult stem cells might not hold the promise once believed.

PAGE 42

34 Article Selection The Lexis-Nexis Academic online database was used to identify articles via a guided news search. First, general news was selected under the news category drop-down menu. Second, major papers was selected under the news source drop-down menu, and The New York Times and The Washington Post were selected via the source list to limit results to those two papers. Third, the database was screened by entering the term stem cell (with quotation marks) in the search term box and selecting headline, lead paragraph(s), terms from the drop-down menu. News stories, feature stories, and opinions/editorials were all included in this study because the researcher felt these types of articles would be most likely to include detailed coverage of stem cell research issues. General letters to the editor were not included. Also, the researcher excluded the printed text of George W. Bushs televised speech from August 10, 2001, which ran in both The Washington Post and The New York Times, on the premise that it was originally a speech and not a written piece. Articles of fewer than 500 words were excluded, because the researcher felt these articles typically are straight research briefs that lack further explanation or context. The researcher also excluded pieces that exceeded 500 words but that were merely an assemblage of several short briefs (e.g. The Washington Posts Findings, Today in Congress, and Washington in Brief columns). The researcher opted to use stories of greater than 500 words because she felt that these pieces devote adequate space to cover the critical elements of this murky topic and, thus, ample room to employ frames. These selection criteria echo those used in other framing studies (Schmid 2004).

PAGE 43

35 Data Collection and Analysis Individual articles were the unit of analysis. Each was coded using a standard coding worksheet and set of coding guidelines (Appendices A and B). In addition to gathering basic identifying information about each article (headline, byline, date, section and page, etc.), the coding sheet examined a number of other items: (1) utilization of key terminology; (2) sources of direct quotations; (3) definition and characterization of stem cell research; (4) presentation of ethical issues surrounding stem cell research; (5) delineation of differences between adult and embryonic stem cells; (6) references to human cloning; and (7) references to other nations, namely their stances on stem cell research or the threat that the United State might be left behind. Data from the coding sheets was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to streamline analysis. To answer the primary research question and determine the frames used, the researcher read through all articles that met the selection criteria. By looking at specific articles individually, the researcher was then able to employ an inductive approach to elucidate general trends among the articles. Variables that influenced frame evolution included terminology, sources, overall tone, and placement of various attributes within the story. The researcher has both formal educational training and professional experience in scientific fields. As such, she understands the technical aspects of the stem cell issue and has followed it in the popular press since its inception. In order to answer the secondary research questions, the researcher tallied all related data fields and calculated basic percentages. Comparisons were made between articles that ran in The New York Times and The Washington Post to elucidate any additional trends.

PAGE 44

36 Validity and Reliability Validity typically represents the truth value of observations, and whether or not researchers have presented factual, confirmable and reliable data (Lindlof and Taylor 2002). Validity refers to the congruence between what a given data set measures and what it intends to measure (Newman 1998). Reliability is a related term and has to do with the consistency of observation and whether the coding sheet, in this case, will generate the same results each time it is applied to the same article (Lindlof and Taylor 2002, p. 238). One way to establish reliability and validity in qualitative research is to utilize a co-coder (Lindlof and Taylor 2002). A second coder was trained and familiarized with the coding sheet and coded a random sample of 20% of the articles which were selected using a random number generator. This coder had completed all coursework for a masters degree in mass communication, having studied both framing theory and qualitative research. Both coders analyzed the data independently and, following coding, they compared frames. The coders agreed on the dominant frames and, in the case of discrepancies, discussed the issue until a conclusion was made. An intercoder reliability of 86.67% was established using a basic intercoder reliability formula: total stories minus irreconcilable frames, divided by total stories.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Frames Used Using the aforementioned criteria, 98 articles were retrieved from The New York Times and 73 articles were retrieved from The Washington Post. The researcher identified a number of frames that permeated the elite print medias coverage of stem cell research. The researcher dubbed these the battle/debate, economic, excess embryos, playing God, promise, and uncertainty frames. Any other frames were coded under an other category. It should be noted that several frames were closely related. For example, uncertainty and battle/debate both hinged on the unknown outcomes of the stem cell research discussion, though the latter frame took a stronger stance using suggestive terms connoting aggressive moves by shareholder groups to resolve the uncertainty. However, each story had a tipping point that ultimately pushed it into one category or another. Table 1. Primary frames sorted by publication The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n= 98 (%) Total articles n=171 (%) Uncertainty 31 (42.5) 38 (38.8) 69 (40.4) Battle/Debate 22 (30.1) 33 (33.7) 55 (32.2) Promise 7 (9.6) 15 (15.3) 22 (12.9) Playing God 3 (4.1) 2 (2.0) 5 (2.9) Economic 3 (4.1) 1 (1.0) 4 (2.3) Excess embryos 1 (1.4) 1 (1.0) 2 (1.2) Other 6 (8.2) 8 (8.2) 14 (8.2) 37

PAGE 46

38 Table 2. Primary frames sorted by article type N ews, n=134 (%) Feature, n=3 (%) Editorial/Opinion, n=34 (%) Uncertainty 58 (43.3) 0 (0.0) 11 (32.4) Battle/Debate 42 (31.3) 0 (0.0) 13(38.2) Promise 15 (11.2) 0 (0.0) 7 (20.6) Playing God 4 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.9) Economic 4 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Excess embryos 2 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Other 9 (6.7) 3 (100.0) 2 (5.9) The Uncertainty Frame The most widely used frame was the uncertainty frame, appearing in 42.5% of The Washington Post articles, 38.8% of The New York Times articles and 40.4% of overall articles. Websters dictionary lists such synonyms for uncertainty as doubt, dubiety, skepticism, and mistrust. Certainly all of these nuances permeated the newspapers coverage of stem cell research as the debate over this new technology surged forward. The uncertainty frame dominated early coverage within the studys time frame and centered on the difficulty in sorting out the moral and ethical concerns over stem cell research. Journalists using this frame cited conservative groups opposed to stem cell research. Quotations from these groups argued for preserving the sanctity of human life and protesting the destruction or creation of human embryos for research purposes. In part, this is because many members of these groups believe that life begins at conception. Since the derivation of stem cells requires the destruction of an embryo, opponents equate this with the taking of a human life. However supporters were quoted contesting that: when it comes to biology, words like destruction, creation, embryo and even life and death are ambiguous. Scientists understand this ambiguity to be a reflection of the complexity of living things. Meanwhile, both advocates and opponents of stem cell research are using that ambiguity to their best advantage (Silver 2001).

PAGE 47

39 Quotes from supporters also countered that frozen embryos are little more than microscopic balls of cells. Quotes from supporters acknowledged that the cells represent potential for human life but with the caveat that many other factors are required to turn the potential life into reality. Supporters were cited arguing that without implantation in a mothers womb, the embryos never stand a chance at maturing into a true human life. Supporters also believe that the true beginnings of life dont come with fertilization: Besides, it is not so clear that an individual life begins at fertilization. The beginnings of the nervous system do not appear until 14 days after fertilization. The early embryo can split, leading to the birth of twins, so that individuality, it could be argued, begins some days after fertilization (Wade 2001a). Adding to the confusion inherent in the uncertainty frame were journalists repeated citations of conservative Republicans crossing party lines. Senators Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond both support embryonic stem cell research. As such, journalists have pegged them as running counter to their party ideals, acting in opposition to their well-documented anti-abortion views and thus aligning themselves with liberal groups in support of stem cell research. Later coverage featuring the uncertainty frame highlighted concern over Bushs decision. Frank Bruni, of The New York Times wrote, his speech was like a Rorschach leaving Bush future wiggle room (Bruni 2001). Authors expressed repeated skepticism on whether the 64 existing cell lines would provide enough latitude to maximize the potential of stem cell research. While the president and his staff argued that the 60-odd cell lines were sufficient to do important science, proponents of stem cell research were quotes as saying Bushs vision is shown to be too narrow. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research felt that by restricting funding to a set number of cell lines, Bushs

PAGE 48

40 policies would inevitably hold back scientists from making progress and that the United States would lag behind other nations. On the other side of the fence, conservative groups were also unhappy with Bushs decision. They felt that Bush had strayed too far from his partys pro-life values, and called for Bush to reconsider and issue a complete ban on all embryonic stem cell research. The Battle/Debate Frame The battle/debate frame was the second most prevalent frame, appearing in 30.1% of The Washington Post articles, 33.7% of The New York Times articles and 32.2% of overall articles Although this frame held certain similarities to the uncertainty frame, the battle/debate frame relied on stronger, aggressive-sounding terminology. Initial use of this frame showed journalists pitting the supporters against the opponents in an all-out battle to draw support to their side of the cause: Sensing an opening during Bushs period of indecision, several members of Congress have written bills, scheduled hearings, demanded White House meetings and taken to the airwaves to reassert themselves in the battle over cells smaller than the head of a pin (Connolly 2001b). Other key phrases that writers used included spark debate, eye to eye, fired back, straddle the line, legislators feuded, political parties are maneuvering, two agendas collide, fertile battleground, skirmishes and fight is not over. Another key element in the battle/debate frame was journalists repeated mention of how President Bushs divided administration was grappling with the agony, conundrum, and quandary of the national debate. This led some writers to suggest that Bushs credibilityis open to question. Some writers saw Bushs consideration of whether to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as a political litmus

PAGE 49

41 test. During his campaign, Bush vowed to protect the sanctity of human life and reinforce pro-life values. Therefore, conservatives wondered why Bush was taking so long to declare what they hoped would be a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. This cat and mouse game led to skepticism on part of the elite print media and perhaps the public. Journalists speculated about the delay, suggesting that it was simply spin, an effort to justify a decision already made (Cohen 2001a). Other journalists expressed that Bush was struggling with how best to appease his various supporters. Some sources quoted in this frame felt Bush was struggling to maintain political advantage and avoid political fallout, and therefore opted for a plan that would offend the least number of people and would help safeguard his political standing for his future re-election campaign. For example, one source described Bushs decision it as a cop-out, but thats his new presidency, going the middle of the road (Fountain 2001). Another contributor felt Bush defused a political time bomb that could have caused deep fissures in the relationships with conservatives and moderates in his own party (Berke 2001). The Promise Frame Journalists also used an alternate frame, the promise frame, which emphasized the promise of stem cell research. Writers using this frame relied heavily on sources from within the scientific and academic communities. The quotes from scientists and ethicists expressed that although there are strong moral and ethical considerations, the ends of stem cell research justify the means. Journalists repeatedly quoted these sources as believing that legions of ailing Americans one day could benefit from the potential therapies generated from stem cell research. Writers reiterated this point through the use of common-ground stories, namely from politicians and such well-known individuals as

PAGE 50

42 Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox. These quotes humanized the issue by offering personal examples of families touched by devastating diseases. Journalists using this frame incorporated a number of specific phrases into their coverage: promise of miracle cures; nascent but promising field; fountain of youth; magical power; limitless potential; dazzling array (of new treatments); stem-cell revolution; so versatile; potential to cure disease and relieve suffering; and breakthrough therapies and cures. Rather than imply that the tissue necessary for this research was obtained from a controversial source (i.e. a fetus), writers used such phrases as: microscopic ball of cells; activated embryo; and blastocyst. Articles using the promise frame often broached the subject of when life begins but did not center on the issue. No doubt, the question over when human life truly begins is laced with uncertainty. Rather than dwell on the uncertainty behind this age-old question, writers using the promise frame touched only briefly on questions about lifes origin. The writers maintained that our inability to answer these questions definitively should not stand in the way of the research possibilities. One Washington Post article cited that the idea that an embryo has a soul is a matter of religious faith, not science, and implied that this question should not stand in the way of federal funding (Silver 2001). Writers using this frame maintained that a key distinction exists between the origin of a human being, an embryological question, and the origin of a human person, a philosophical question (Irving 1999). Indeed, no court has ever suggested that they (embryos) have human rights and it would be unethical to protect them at a sick persons expense (Weiss 2001a).

PAGE 51

43 The Playing God Frame Certain elements of uncertainty crept into the playing God frame, as well. However, writers using this frame stepped beyond the basic waffling of whether we should move forward with embryonic stem cell research, instead arguing that we must be sure not overstep our ethical boundaries and play God. This frame, perhaps not surprisingly, was more prevalent in articles citing conservative groups and opponents of stem cell research. Groups cited in the articles included: abortion rights opponents, conservative Republican members of Congress, the Catholic Church and other religious groups. Articles also cited opponents who argued that a tragic coarsening of consciences makes it permissible to kill so long as we intend to bring good from it. These groups were quoted as believing that our stem cell research policies should reiterate the basic principle of medicine, to do no harm. Journalists cited opponents of stem cell research as maintaining that it is morally and ethically wrong to use human embryonic tissue for research. Writers who employed the playing God described stem cells as nascent and innocent human life that must be protected, adding that the sacrifice of these unborn embryos and tiny human beings only devalues and violates human life. For example, Family Research Council president Kenneth Connor wrote that no commercial gain or scientific benefit can justify the slaughter of the innocent (Connor 2001). A few articles using this frame (mainly editorials) incorporated an element of fear through the use of specific terminology. For example, one Washington Post editorial referenced the human experimentation conducted at Auschwitz and then suggested that stem cell research could lead to scientists playing God, using cloning to provide spare human parts. Another article using this frame warned of fetal farming, suggesting that

PAGE 52

44 the overwhelming demand for embryos would result in for-profit businesses to breed new embryos for research. The Excess Embryos Frame The excess embryos frame was in many ways complementary to the promise frame. Journalists centered the excess embryos frame on the overproduction of embryos for infertility treatments. They cited fertility experts who express that many embryos generated for IVF are defective and can never be viable for reproductive purposes. Authors also noted that couples undergoing IVF typically end up with more embryos than are needed. This frame emphasizes that stem cell research would be able to utilize these embryos, saving them from certain destruction and unnecessary waste. This frames terminology centered on embryos, describing them in a number of ways: excess, surplus, spare, leftover, not needed, in excess of clinical need, or would otherwise be thrown away. The Economic Frame The economic frame played up the potential financial payoffs that will result from advances in stem cell research. Key terminology used in this frame included slew of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists ready to swing [the door] wide open, commercial potential, long-term growth, economically attractive, business issues, and investors. Sources Quoted An important attribute in determining frames is the sources that are quoted within articles. The researcher wanted to know with what frequency the elite newspapers quoted key players in the stem cell research debate and relied on Nisbet et al 2003 to characterize source allegiances.

PAGE 53

45 Table 3. Sources directly quoted within articles The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) Scientists, administrators, and science policy analysts 49 (19.3) 83 (84.7) 132 (19.6) Pro-ES cell research groups 40 (15.7) 79 (80.6) 119 (17.7) Bush administration 36 (14.2) 53 (54.1) 89 (13.2) Religious groups 23 (9.1) 38 (38.8) 61 (9.1) Ethicists 20 (7.9) 39 (39.8) 59 (8.8) Republican pro-ES cell research 19 (7.5) 36 (36.7) 55 (8.2) Anti-ES cell research groups 16 (6.3) 30 (30.6) 46 (6.8) Republican anti-ES cell research 18 (7.1) 17 (17.3) 35 (5.2) Democratic pro-ES cell research 18 (7.1) 16 (16.3) 34 (5.0) Celebrities 0 (0.0) 3 (3.1) 3 (0.4) Democratic anti-ES cell research 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) Other 14 (5.5) 25 (25.5) 39 (5.8) Total sources 254 419 653 Scientists, Administrators and Science Policy Analysts The most oft-cited source group was that of scientists, administrators and science policy analysts, making up 19.3% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 84.7% in The New York Times, and 19.6% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Group members included stem cell research scientists like James Thomson. The group also included administrators and science policy analysts affiliated with universities, hospitals, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists were included regardless of whether they held a medical degree or a doctorate of philosophy, and whether they worked in academia or for the National Institutes of Health. Scientists working in any commercial ventures were lumped into the Pro-ES stem cell research groups, as they stood to benefit financially from any

PAGE 54

46 advancement in stem cell technology. Most of the time, these scientists were academic researchers who had spun off a for-profit company that they themselves headed. Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups Pro-embryonic stem cell groups were the second most-cited groups, comprising 15.7% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 80.6% in The New York Times, and 17.7% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Sources in this category included any groups who stand to profit, either financially or through potential medical cures, from advances in embryonic stem cell research. Groups included the Coalition to Advance Medical Research, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (including managing director Carl Gulbrandsen), Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Parkinsons Foundation, biotechnology companies (like Geron) or their officers, and financial analysts who favor embryonic stem cell research. Bush Administration The next source group was the Bush administration, which accounted for 14.2% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 54.1% in The New York Times, and 13.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This group included George W. Bush himself; advisors, aides or spokespeople for George W. Bush; cabinet members like Tommy Thompson, director of the agency of Health and Human Services; and Karl Rove, top political adviser. Religious Groups Religious groups were the next category, making up 9.1% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 38.8% in The New York Times, and 9.1% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Members of this group included the Catholic Church,

PAGE 55

47 Pope John Paul II, the Vatican, National Council of Catholic Bishops (including Richard Doerflinger), and conservative Protestant groups. Ethicists The next most-frequent category was ethicists. This group made up 7.9 % of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 39.8% in The New York Times, and 8.8% of the total sources quoted in both papers and included R. Alta Charo, Leon Kass, and James Childress. The category also included any other ethicists, including those identified as sitting on advisory boards for biotechnology companies (as opposed to including them in the pro-embryonic stem cell groups category with other biotechnology interests.) Republican Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research Sources from the Republican pro-embryonic stem cell research category comprised 7.5% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 36.7% in The New York Times, and 5.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This category included Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Bill Frist, Connie Mack, John McCain, Jim Ramstad, Nancy Johnson, and Susan Collins, as well as any state-level GOP supporters opposed to ES cell research. Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups Another source category was called anti-embryonic stem cell groups, which accounted for 6.3% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 30.6% in The New York Times, and 6.8% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Group members included the National Right to Life League, American Life League, and Family Research Council organizations, as well as their officers and representatives.

PAGE 56

48 Republican Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Republican anti-embryonic stem cell research source category accounted for 7.1% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 17.3% in The New York Times, and 5.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Sources included Congressional members Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts, Sam Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon, and Tom Delay. The category also included any state-level congressional members who were mentioned in coverage. Democratic Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research Democratic pro-embryonic stem cell research sources made up 7.1% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 16.3% in The New York Times, and 5.0% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This group included Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nita Lowey, Richard Gephardt, Henry Waxman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Jim McDermott, as well as any state-level Democratic supporters. Celebrities Another category was celebrities, although members of this group made up only 3.1% of sources within New York Times articles and 0.4% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Celebrities were not quoted in any Washington Post articles. Well-known public figures who support ES cell research including Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve are included in this group. Democratic Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research Nisbet et al (2003) also named a Democratic anti-embryonic stem cell research group, which they listed as including Ronnie Shows, Nick Rahall, Bart Stupak, Jim Barcia, Dale Kildee, Christopher John, Solomon Ortiz, Mike McIntyre, David Phelps,

PAGE 57

49 and Ike Skelton. However, only one Democratic opponent appeared among all articles examined, within a single Washington Post article (0.4% of quotes within Washington Post articles and 0.1% of quotes within all articles). Other Sources Several sources could not be classified into the above categories and were tallied in an other category. These sources included political advisers whose stance on ES-cell research was not articulated, any members of the Clinton administration, and literary or historical figures like Aldous Huxley and Thomas Jefferson (the latter were mainly quoted in editorials). These other sources totaled 5.5% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 25.5% in The New York Times, and 5.8% of the overall sources in both papers. Definition and Characterization of Stem Cell Research The researcher also was interested in how stem cell research was defined and explained, including how the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research were characterized. The researcher believes that if people are to understand the central issues of the debate, then they must have at least a basic appreciation for the technology and terminology. Specifically, the researcher looked first at whether each article attempted to define stem cell research in any way. For example, some articles gave a basic explanation like stem cells are the basic building blocks of the body with no further explanation anywhere in the article. Other articles gave a more technical, in-depth descriptions that included details on the sources of stem cells, how they are isolated and grown, and their potential usefulness. For example:

PAGE 58

50 hematopoietic stem cells are the source in the bone marrow from which a constant stream of red and white blood cells is produced throughout a persons life. Like embryonic stem cells, they can renew themselves indefinitely, but their potential is restricted to making just the cells of the blood system (Wade 2001a). Just over half (50.7%) of the articles in The Washington Post gave a basic definition of stem cell research, 11% percent gave an in-depth definition, and 38.0% offered no definition at all. In The New York Times, 37.8% of the articles gave a basic definition, 22.4% percent gave an in-depth definition, and 40.0% offered no definition at all. Table 4. Definition and characterization of stem cell research The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) Basic 37 (50.7) 37 (37.8) 74 (43.2) In-depth 8 (11.0) 22 (22.4) 30 (17.5) None 28 (38.0) 39 (40.0) 67 (39.2) On a secondary level, the researcher looked at whether the articles highlighted any of the ethical/moral implications of stem cell research. More specifically, the researcher looked at whether the article touched on two key points: (1) that embryos must be destroyed, sacrificed, or killed in order to extract embryonic stem cells; and (2) that in vitro fertility treatments are result in discarded, excess, or spare embryos that are not needed, in excess of clinical need, or would otherwise be thrown away. A majority of articles in both papers highlighted the ethical implications, with The Washington Post ringing in at 68.5% and The New York Times at 66.3%. Specifically, 71.2% of Washington Post articles and 67.3% of New York Times articles mentioned embryo destruction, while 60.2% of Washington Post articles and 55.1% of New York Times articles referred to surplus IVF embryos.

PAGE 59

51 Table 5. Ethical/moral implications The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) Overall implications 50 (68.49) 65 (66.3) 115 (67.3) Embryo destruction 52 (71.2) 66 (67.3) 118 (69.0) IVF surplus embryos 44 (60.2) 54 (55.1) 99 (57.9) Finally, on a tertiary level, the researcher looked at whether articles made specific reference to adult or embryonic stem cells (as opposed to simply using the generic term stem cells) and whether articles made a direct comparison of these two main cell types, detailing their respective uses, strengths and weaknesses. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson was quoted in one Washington Post article about this issue: There has never been the research done comparing adult [umbilical] cord blood and embryonic stem cells to determine what are the qualities, what are the abilities of these stem cells (Weiss 2001c). Other articles made explicit comparisons: While considered inferior by many scientists, adults [sic] cells may turn out to be as useful as those obtained from embryos without posing the problem of having to destroy embryos to get them, [ethicists] argued (Connolly 2001a). The most detailed delineation between adult and embryonic stem cells came from a New York Times reporter who crafted a 3,555-word piece titled Teaching the body to heal itself; Work on cells signals fosters talk of a new medicine. Embryonic stem cells are created in the very early embryo; from them, all the bodies tissues and organs are generated. Once the body is formed, the embryonic stem cells disappear, leaving behind a few descendants to keep the body in good repair through its lifetime. These descendants, often called adult stem cells, apparently lack the embryonic stem cells power of generating any and all of the bodys tissues. Nor can they renew themselves indefinitely, as can embryonic stem cells grown in glassware (Wade 2000).

PAGE 60

52 In all, 35.6% of Washington Post articles mentioned used the term adult stem cells, 72.6% used the term embryonic stem cells, and 28.8% made a direct comparison between the two. The numbers were similar among New York Times articles with 34.7% using the term adult stem cells, 81.6% using the term embryonic stem cells, and 24.5% comparing the two. Table 6. Adult versus embryonic stem cell research The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) Adult stem cells 26 (35.6) 34 (34.7) 60 (35.1) Embryonic stem cells 53 (72.6) 80 (81.6) 133 (77.8) Adult vs. embryonic stem cells 21 (28.8) 24 (24.5) 45 (26.3) Cloning The researcher wanted to know how frequently cloning was cited. The researcher felt it was important to examine whether articles this issue since the use of the term cloning can cause confusion among some readers, who may not realize the differences inherent between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Just under a quarter of the articles mentioned cloning (21.9% of Washington Post articles, 24.5% of New York Times articles, and 23.4% of all articles). Table 7. References to human cloning The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) 16 (21.9) 24 (21.9) 40 (23.4) Some articles cited specific concern over reproductive cloning, i.e. creating exact replicas of existing humans, noting that the majority of scientists oppose such technology. Other articles featured concerns, but in a more general sense. For example, one New York

PAGE 61

53 Times editorial opposed cloning because it threatens to destroy what is genuinely unique about each human being (Wolfe 2001). Some reporters also quoted Bush as being opposed to cloning in its generic sense, while others clarified that this meant Bush opposed human cloning for any purpose, including research, and he urged researchers to explore the potential of stem cells derived from adults (Wolfe 2001; Goldstein 2001). Additional articles took great care to explain the differences between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. For example, therapeutic cloning is when an embryo would be created from a patients cells to make life-saving tissue (McNeil 2001). Some went into even further detail on therapeutic cloning: The purpose of such cloning is not to create a baby but to use a patients own cells to create embryos from which stem cells can be obtained. Such cells would grow into tissue matching that of the patient, so the patients immune system would not reject transplants (Pollack 2001). United States versus Other Nations Finally, the researcher wanted to know how frequently articles mentioned stances taken by other nations or alluded to the threat of the United States being left behind. The researcher felt it was important to look for discussion of a possible brain drain, because such an event could mean that the United States would fall behind other nations and lose its hard-earned reputation as a scientific bellwether. In total, 8.2% of Washington Post articles, 11.2% of New York Times articles and 9.9% of all articles from both papers touched on this point. The majority of articles that gave at least a cursory description of international stem cell policies did so at or near the end of articles.

PAGE 62

54 Table 8. References to other nations The Washington Post, n=73 (%) The New York Times, n=98 (%) Total articles, n=171 (%) 6 (8.2) 11 (11.2) 17 (9.9) Certain articles merely noted what was going on in other nations, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions as to what this might mean for the United States: Among nations, only Britain has set up a legal mechanism that allows the creation of new embryos for research, with strict rules governing the kinds of experiments that are eligible. To date, none have been used to create stem cells (Weiss 2001b). Other articles commented that Swedens political climate is benign for stem cell research and that India has no religious, cultural, political or social barriers to this research. Some editorials lauded stances taken by other nations. For example, Jim Clark, founder of Silicon Graphics Netscape, Healtheon (now WebMD) and myCFO, penned a New York Times editorial presenting his reasons for withholding the reamaining $60 million of his outstanding $150 million pledge to Stanford University to create a center for biomedical engineering and science at Stanford. He noted that the United Kingdom has chosen to regulate nonreproductive cloning, a move which he deemed more rational than the United States policy to ban it outright (Clark 2001). Still other articles cited that the United States policy may put it at a disadvantage. For example, one of Americas top stem cell researchers, Roger Pedersen, was fleeing to England in order to escape an unfriendly climate in the United States and to maximize [his] potential. One news articles lead reiterated this point: An unexpected new order of powers has emerged, at least in the field of human embryonic stem cell research. The roster, say scientists who back the research, is evidence of the inventiveness of the newcomers but also shows how much the usual

PAGE 63

55 powerhouses of biomedical research in the United States and Europe have been held back by political and ethical debate (Wade 2001b). However, this article also includes the caveat that some nations arent maximizing their potential either. For example, British biologists developed the technique for growing embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos, the underpinning of the methods that other have used with human cells, but they have yet to derive human embryonic stem cells. One Washington Post article offered the most in-depth look at the international ramifications. The headline proclaimed India plans to fill void in stem cell research; Scientists say restrictions in U.S. may give them advantage in development (Lakshmi 2001). The author elaborated, stating that India had not established policies governing stem cell research, which left the door wide open for interested researchers. The author quoted one source saying that Bushs announcement of the limited U.S. policy opened a new pot of gold for India science and business. The author cited that public debate in India had been minimal, in part because most Indians are not aware of the research or its controversial nature but also because of the nations differing values; Our society is liberal in areas of scientific work. We will not face any opposition, said one Indian biologist. The author closed the article with the caveat that although India allows scientists greater latitude, the nation is not likely to surpass other leading scientific nations; The work here is still in its infancy and futuristic experimentsare a low priority in a country in which millions of people have no access to basic health care, the author wrote. The author of a Washington Post editorial also reassured that despite the positions

PAGE 64

56 of other nations, the United States does not risk being left behind: If the United States doesnt lead, the rest of the world is not going to do much either (Cohen 2001b).

PAGE 65

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION It will come as no surprise to anyone who reads the newspaper on a regular basis that the issue of stem cell research has been and continues to be a pivotal and hotly contested topic. The technologys touted promise means that it could shift the way we treat disease, moving us into an era of regenerative medicine. Of course, we also know that not everyone endorses this new technology. The way in which the elite media have covered the debate can give us an interesting glimpse into the evolution of this pressing public policy issue. Frame Analysis Frame use shifted over time. In many earlier articles, journalists utilized the promise frame, likely as a direct result of the newly available federal funds for stem cell research. Journalists then shifted to using the battle/debate and uncertainty as a conservative, pro-life Republican president prepared to take office. Journalists highlighted Bushs extended debate over whether or not to allow federal funding, which equated to prolonged reliance of the battle/debate and uncertainty frames. It was at this point that coverage began to use the playing God frame, as opponents of ES cell research voiced their opposition of ES cell research funding. Newspaper coverage following Bushs decision was also dominated by the uncertainty frame. In numerous articles, writers debated whether Bushs allowances would be enough. Concerns were mentioned about whether adult stem cells held the same promise as ES cells. Others 57

PAGE 66

58 writers questioned if the 64 existing cell lines eligible for federal funding would prove viable and readily available to scientists. Use of Uncertainty and Battle/Debate As described in the results section, authors favored uncertainty as a primary frame, evidenced by the fact that this frame appeared most frequently (40.4% of all articles.) Journalists relied most heavily on the uncertainty frame in hard news coverage (43.3% of all news stories), indicating that stem cell research can be seen as an emergent science. Susanna Hornig Priest described emergent science as science whose truth has not yet been settled by consensus, either scientific or public (Priest 1999, p. 97). She stated that emergent science is almost always dubbed newsworthy. The repeated appearance of stem cell research on the front pages certainly confirms this. As was mentioned in the results section, the uncertainty frame evolved over time. In later coverage, journalists included quotes from pro-ES cell groups that questioned whether Bushs policy would allow scientists enough leeway. The quotes expressed doubt over whether the 60-odd cell lines that Bush approved would provide scientists enough latitude. Perhaps journalists opted for those quotes because they were hearing many voices argue that sufficient is not the same as excellent. After all, is sufficient performance enough to truly succeed in a cutting-edge field? In this country, we strive for superlative, not average, performance, both in our independent lives and at a national level. The latter is especially true when it comes to science and technology. A glance back at the space race reminds us of this. The uncertainty frame related closely to the battle/debate frame, which was the second most prevalent frame and accounted for 32.2% of all articles. As is the case in many battles, it was unclear which side might emerge victorious in the stem cell debate.

PAGE 67

59 Ultimately, journalists portrayed Bush as choosing a middle ground where the warring parties could meet. It could be said that Bushs compassionate conservatism had morphed into a new breed, that of calculated conservatism. Coverage reflected that Bushs announcement to supply federal funds for limited embryonic stem cell research quelled the debate temporarily as both sides sought to understand what Bushs policy would mean for their cause. However in the long run, coverage focused on the fact that Bushs policy only intensified the uncertainty and renewed the battle. Journalists featured stakeholders on both sides who continued to push for revised policies and thus prolonged the debate. It is perhaps not surprising that journalists writing about stem cell research tended to rely most heavily on frames of uncertainty and battle/debate. Indeed, studies show that the rate of scientific uncertainty in the media is increasing (Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers 1999). Friedman has argued that experts on each side of an issue introduce elements of uncertainty in an effort to sway public opinion. However rather than skirt murky issues, the Association for Health Care Journalists code of ethics urges science writers to clearly define and communicate areas of doubt and uncertainty. This seems the best tact when covering stem cell research, since the subtle nuances must be understood fully before one can form a truly educated opinion on the issue. It is likely that the writers of the various articles wanted to show readers that two distinct sides of the issue existed. So often, we hear that media writers are taught to write fair and balanced coverage. By citing ideologies on both sides of the stem cell debate, writers fulfilled this media ideal, at least to a certain extent. While it is important that the media provide balanced, accurate and complete information on a subject, declaring

PAGE 68

60 support or opposition for complex issues can help clarify ongoing debate and bring potential resolution. Hertog and McLeod (2001) refer to this as the resolution phase. However, it should be noted that although articles featured both sides of the debate, coverage was by no means equal; certain themes and voices appeared repeatedly. For example, one voice that seemed to appear more frequently than all other conservative sources was that of Richard Doerflinger. Like other religious leaders, he clamored that we should not move forward with this technology since we cannot be certain we are not destroying nascent human lives. This is not the first time this tact has been used in public debate. Many of the central arguments that conservatives were quoted using in this debate hearken to those used to protest abortion. Hertog and McLeod (2001) suggest that frames are often recycled from one media topic to another. Indeed, controversies over science and technology persist, and the same issues keep reoccurring in changing forms (Nelkin 1995). On a basic level, journalistic coverage suggests that many conservatives view stem cell research as a pro-life issue. However, certain otherwise pro-life conservatives have come out in support of embryonic stem cell research and have been featured prominently in the media. In fact, journalists quoted these sources as saying that supporting embryonic stem cell research is indeed in-line with pro-life fundamentals, as the technology could ultimately result in disease therapies benefiting millions of Americans. The idea that one could sit on either side of the fence on the stem cell issue and still be pro-life is perhaps not as surprising as it may sound. In fact, it can be a useful tool in public debate: social groups may exhibit different ideologies and yet apply the same frame to a particular topic (Hertog and McLeod 2001, p.144).

PAGE 69

61 Overwhelmingly, though, the elite medias coverage of stem cell research tended to be positive. Staff writers took care to highlight both sides of the debate, although they tended to feature sources in favor of embryonic stem cell research more frequently than those who opposed it. Journalists might touch on the controversies over stem cell research, but the language they used tended to play up the promise more than the potential pitfalls. It is difficult to say whether this pattern can be seen as good or bad. In some ways, journalists proclivity to play up the positive could be seen as critical to advancing public discussion of the issue and resulting policy. Use of Other Frames Authors used a number of other frames, including the playing God and promise frames, both of which included quotations from polar sources. In playing God stories, writers favored conservative sources such as the Catholic Church and abortion rights opponents while in promise stories, writers quoted more liberal sources such as academics and patient advocacy groups. As was mentioned in the results section, journalists using the promise frame often relied on personal testimonials, which may help build rapport with readers since just about everyone has a family member or friend who might benefit from the potential therapies expected to emerge from in stem cell research. Writers using the promise frame tended to discuss the arguments behind when life begins, whereas those using the playing God frame often skirted the issue and simply maintained that all life, no matter how microscopic, was sacred. It is possible that writers using the promise frame were attempting to downplay the moral elements of the technology by dealing head on with the issue of when life truly begins: if the controversy could be abated then perhaps support for the issue would intensify.

PAGE 70

62 Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders in support of embryonic stem cell research were quoted by journalists with greater frequency than stakeholders who oppose embryonic stem cell research (82 anti-ES sources vs. 208 pro-ES sources among 171 total articles). This may, in part, be due to the fact that public opinion research polls showed that a majority of Americans actually supported stem cell research. The media articles may simply have been reflecting the dominant opinion on the topic. Scientists and science policy analysts made up a large chunk of all sources quoted by writers (132 science sources among 171 total articles). This is perhaps not surprising. Firstly, stem cell research is an emergent science, as described by Priest. This means that a majority of the American public does not understand the subtle nuances of the technology or terminology. Thus, it behooves reporters to rely on scientific sources to help fill in the blanks and explain the burgeoning new field to novice readers. Secondly, the literature shows that journalists tend to favor elite sources like scientists when crafting stories. Journalists relied on certain other stakeholders repeatedly throughout coverage. For example, Richard Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was quoted a number of times, perhaps because his group has been very vocal in its opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the Catholic Church was cited more frequently than any other religious group in its opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Also cited frequently were Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond. These otherwise-conservative Republicans were lobbying in support of embryonic stem cell research, an apparent affront to party lines. This multi-layered controversy made them attractive sources for journalists. Embryonic Stem Cells vs. Adult Stem Cells Oftentimes, journalists used the generic term stem cell research in news articles, which can be seen as exceedingly problematic. This umbrella term does not give the reader critical contextual information about the source of the stem cells. Stakeholders on

PAGE 71

63 both sides of the stem cell issue have been frustrated by the medias use of this all-inclusive term. Many conservative groups, for example, support adult stem cell research but oppose embryonic stem cell research. Does this mean they are for stem cell research or against it? It all depends on what kind of stem cell research one is talking about. Meanwhile, pro-research groups often believe that one must be pro-ES cell research in order to be considered in favor of stem cell research. No apparent difference existed between how each newspaper delineated adult stem cell research from embryonic stem cell research. It is somewhat surprising that the delineation rate was so low. As described in the background section, large differences exist between embryonic and adult stem cells, namely in source and potential for research. This lack of delineation could lead to greater confusion of the issues among readers. Cloning and Stem Cell Research The Washington Post referenced human cloning in 21.9% of its articles (16 of 73 articles) while The New York Times referenced it in 24.5% of its articles (24 of 98 articles). In most articles that cited human cloning, journalists made a brief attempt to differentiate it from stem cell research. However, this could have been done in a much more exacting manner in a greater number of articles. By specifying that stem cell research and human cloning are entirely separate, journalists could have staved off some of the controversy over stem cell research funding. For example, many supporters of stem cell research argue that the process of creating stem cells (sometimes known as therapeutic cloning) is not the same thing as creating human beings (also known as reproductive cloning). However, if no clear distinction between these technologies is

PAGE 72

64 made, readers may assume that all stem cell research means that scientists are acting out science-fiction fantasies and reproducing human beings. United StatesGlobal Leader or Lagging Behind? Writers for The Washington Post referenced other nations in 8.2% of articles (6 of 73 articles) while New York Times writers referenced them in 11.22% of articles (11 of 98 articles). Overall, it did not seem that writers from either paper were overly concerned with how the efforts in the United States might stack up to those of other countries. This is somewhat disturbing, for a number of reasons: Other countries around the world will pay a great deal of attention to what the United States does in its domestic law. If an international consensus on the regulation of certain biotechnologies is ever to take shape, it is unlikely to come about in the absence of American action at the domestic level (Fukuyama 2002, p.11). So by not acting decisively, the United States may slow scientific progress across the globe. Of course, other outcomes are possible. For many years, the United States has prided itself on being at the cutting edge of scientific research. Some supporters of stem cell research fear that if our policies lag behind those of other nations then the United States will simple get left behind as other nations forge ahead. Along these lines, some scientists and analysts fear that a conservative stem cell research policy could lead to a brain drain, where talented stem cell researchers would leave the United States for foreign shores where they could conduct their researcher unfettered by restrictive policies. Conclusions Although this study may appear dated to some readers (the dataset stretches back nearly five years), it is anything but old news. At the time this analysis was completed (Summer 2005), stem cell research continued to be a dominant topic in the current news.

PAGE 73

65 The initial debates over stem cell research and Bushs policy were truncated by the events of September 11 th. Rightfully so, the nation found it had more important issues to consider than federal policies governing the funding of embryonic stem cell research. However given time, the media agenda has evolved to again include stem cell research as a prominent feature. Overall, the topic of stem cell research framing in the elite newspapers carries great importance. As mentioned earlier, stem cell research has the potential to transform the medical field entirely. Despite the previously discussed ethical risks surrounding the advance of stem cell research, it is equally important to consider what will occur if we do no move forward in this area. This idea has been echoed by Chris MacDonald, an ethicist at Dalhousie University, who said, In the field of biotechnology, nothing short of inaction can guarantee that we wont make decisions that end up seeming, in retrospect, to have been mistakes (MacDonald 2001). Overbearing policy will greatly hinder scientific progress, preventing therapies and cures for a vast array of medical conditions and diseases from ever being realized. In the meantime, scientists in other countries will be hard at work making these specific discoveries. In her 2002 study of stem cell policies in the U.S., United Kingdom, France and Canada, Zimmerman found this: The United States is in the curious position of having been in the forefront of human embryonic stem cell research, yet now having the most restrictive regulatory regime of the four countries surveyed (Zimmerman 2002, p. 78). At first blush, this seems benign. The discoveries can always be applied within the U.S. However, it likely would take longer for potential therapies to be implemented; therapies developed outside the U.S. often trigger greater skepticism and a longer review

PAGE 74

66 process by the FDA. In all, it is important to study the specific framing of this issue as it has the power to influence the subsequent public policy decisions made in this country. The bottom line is that the uncertainty surrounding stem cell research has made it challenging to establish lasting policies. The trouble is that science progresses at a rate far faster than the policies that should guide it. In the words of Bertrand Russell, The central problem of our age is how to act decisively in the absence of certainty. Perhaps the media, by conveying the central elements of the debate, can help to resolve this promising but controversial issue. Limitations and Future Research This study attempted a comprehensive look at how elite papers have framed stem cell research. However, the study was not without its limitations. While the study looked in-depth at what key terms were used and what sources were quotes, it did not consider the placement of these various attributes within the story. For example, journalism schools teach journalists to follow the inverted pyramid format, placing the most critical elements of a story near the top and the less important elements later on. Thus, a source quoted in the first three paragraphs would carry more weight than a quote buried at the end. In relation to sources, the study looked only at sources given direct quotes within articles. A complete picture would include an examination of paraphrased quotes, as well as shareholder groups that were mentioned but not quoted. Therefore, future studies might seek to identify which sources were paraphrased versus directly quoted, as well as the placement of key attributes within individual stories. Another limitation revolved around the examination of cloning in coverage. If a story mentioned cloning in any way, the researcher noted this. However, the researcher did not delineate between quotes from conservatives afraid of potential baby factories

PAGE 75

67 and supporters who lobbied for therapeutic cloning. Future studies would do better to establish clearer measurement tools for this question. Another limitation of this study was that it merely took a snapshot of existing coverage and lacked the ability to confirm any possible effects of this coverage. A reader-effects study would be useful here. Subjects could be asked to read various articles featuring stem cell research, completing preand post-test analyses that would gauge their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on selected stem-cell issues. The details of this study aside, the topic no doubt lends itself to further exploration. Examining articles of 100 to 500 words could be insightful since many Americans tend to get their news from shorter stories. However, these same stories would offer less space for detailing this complex issue. It would be interesting to see if authors were able to distill critical elements into a succinct synopsis. It also might be useful to study the framing of elite newspapers in other regions of the U.S. (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.), rather than just the East Coast. Because the papers examined in this study tended to frame the topic in a more progressive and liberal manner, a study of newspapers in more traditionally conservative climates like the Midwest and the South could yield different results. And finally, in countries such as England and Sweden, the governments already have tackled the thorny issues surrounding stem cell research and have introduced regulatory measures and legislation. An alternate perspective could be achieved by studying elite newspapers in other countries.

PAGE 76

APPENDIX A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET 1. Newspaper: 2. Date: 3. Day: 4. Headline: 5. Authors name and affiliation: Staff Guest/Freelance Wire Syndicate 6. Part of series? (0) No (1) Yes 7. Word count: 8. Section and page: 9. Geographic level: Local State National Intl. 10. Type of item: News Feature Opinion Other 11. Graphic element(s)? List caption and/or description: 12. Lead 13. Main topic of story: 14. Secondary topic(s): 15. Key term(s) used in the article: 16. Sources used in story for direct quotation(s): REP Anti-ES REP pro-ES DEM o pp onent DEM su pp orte r President and Cabinet Govt body Pro-ES Scientists & anal y sts Religious g rou p s Anti-ES Ethicists Other 17. Does the article define stem cell research at all?: (0) No (1) Yes 18. If yes was selected in the previous question, was the research defined (1) on a basic level; or (2) on a more detailed level? 19. Does the article outline potential implications (e.g. moral or ethical)?: (0) No (1) Yes 20. Does the article mention the destruction of embryos in any way?: (0) No (1) Yes 68

PAGE 77

69 21. Does the article mention discarded or excess embryos from in vitro fertility treatments?: (0) No (1) Yes 22. Does the article refer to the potential of stem cell research to yield treatment for specific disease(s)? (0) No (1) Yes If yes, list which ones: 23. Does the article use the term human cloning or allude to this procedure? (0) No (1) Yes 24. Does the article use the term adult stem cells or stem cells derived from adult cells? (0) No (1) Yes 25. Does the article use the term embryonic stem cells or stem cells derived from human embryos? (0) No (1) Yes 26. Does the article delineate between embryonic and adult stem cells research? (0) No (1) Yes 27. Does the article mention stances taken by other nations and/or mention the threat that the U.S. may be left behind? (0) No (1) Yes _____________________________ Frame analysis Primary frame: Secondary frame(s):

PAGE 78

APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET 1. Record the name of the newspaper. You may use the abbreviations NYT for The New York Times and WP for The Washington Post. 2. List the date of the article in standard format: MM/DD/YYYY. 3. List the day of the week on which the article ran using the following abbreviations: Sunday (U); Monday (M); Tuesday (T); Wednesday (W); Thursday (R); Friday (F); and Saturday (A). 4. List the headline, exactly as it appears. Be sure to include any unique capitalization or punctuation. 5. List the authors name, as listed in the byline. Identify the authors affiliation (staff, guest/freelance, wire, or syndicate). If no affiliation is listed, assume that the writer is a staff writer. 6. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes to indicate whether this article was part of a series. If yes, then indicate which part of the series and then list the series editors name. 7. List the word count, if available. 8. List the section and page number where the article ran. List the section letter (i.e. A, B, C, etc.) and/or the section name (Financial, World, etc.), depending on what is available. Examples: A-1; Financial-1. 9. Circle whether this was a local, state, national or international piece. The scope should be determined by looking at the main focus of the piece, as well as the sources quoted within the piece. A local piece will include sources primarily from the local area (mayor, citizens, etc.) and will emphasize the effect of the story at the city or county level. A state piece may include quotes from the governor, members of the state house or senate, or other state-level officials. Both national and international pieces will likely include quotes from the president and/or his cabinet, as well as members of the House and Senate. International pieces will likely include sources from other countries (e.g. scientists) or may simply discuss the implications of stem cell research on an international level. 10. Circle whether this was a news, feature, opinion, or other type of piece. 70

PAGE 79

71 11. Note graphic elements using the following abbreviations: (0) none; (1) photograph; (2) graph; (3) illustration; (4) pull quote; or (5) other (explain). List caption and/or describe. 12. Often, the lead is the first paragraph, although it can be delayed and appear later as a nut graph within the first several paragraphs. Just record the paragraph that best captures the who, what, when, where, why and how of the story. 13. After reading the entire story, identify the main topic of story. Examples include a new scientific discovery or a discussion of possible public policy decisions. 14. Identify secondary topic(s), if applicable. For example, articles with a main topic of scientific discovery may have economic impact as a secondary topic. 15. Identify key terms that are used in the article. Look for words that connote any additional meaning or are emotionally charged. For example, the words blastocyst and embryo can both describe the same life stage but carry very different connotations. Along with blastocyst, note any other scientific terms like hematopoetic. Along with embryo, note any other charged words like pro-life or anti-life. Other key terms might include the predicted outcomes of the technology, i.e. the promise or peril of stem cell research. 16. Identify the number of unique sources used in direct quotations using the following allegiances, which are drawn from Nisbet et al 2003: GOP Opponents Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts, Sam Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon, Tom Delay, and other GOP members. May also include state-level as opposed to national-level senators or representatives. GOP supporters Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Bill Frist, Connie Mack, John McCain, Jim Ramstad, Nancy Johnson, Susan Collins and other GOP supporters. May also include state-level as opposed to national-level senators or representatives. Democratic opponents Ronnie Shows, Nick Rahall, Bart Stupak, Jim Barcia, Dale Kildee, Christopher John, Solomon Ortiz, Mike McIntyre, David Phelps, or Ike Skelton. May also include state-level as opposed to national-level senators or representatives. Democratic supporters Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nita Lowey, Richard Gephardt, Henry Waxman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jim McDermott and other Democratic supporters. May also include state-level as opposd to national-level senators or representatives. President and his cabinet George W. Bush himself; advisors, aides or spokespeople for George W. Bush; cabinet members like Tommy Thompson,

PAGE 80

72 director of the agency of Health and Human Services; and Karl Rove, top political adviser. Pro-embryonic stem cell research groups or individuals Groups who stand to profit, either financially or through potential medical cures. This category includes the Coalition to Advance Medical Research, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (including managing director Carl Gulbrandsen), Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Parkinsons Foundation, biotechnology companies (like Geron) or their officers, and financial analysts who favor embryonicstem cell research. Celebrities Well-known public figures who support ES cell research including Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve. Scientists and analysts James Thomson and other scientists. Also includes administrators and science policy analysts who are affiliated with universities, hospitals, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Institutes of Health or the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists should be included regardless of whether they hold an M.D. or Ph.D. or whether they work in academia or for the National Institutes of Health. Religious groups Catholic Church, Pope, Vatican, National Council of Catholic Bishops (including Richard Doerflinger), and conservative Protestant groups. Anti-embryonic stem cell research groups National Right to Life League, American Life League, or Family Research Council. Ethicists R. Alta Charo, Leon Kass, James Childress, or other bioethicists. Any ethicists who sit on advisory boards for biotechnology companies should be counted in this category, as opposed to being counted inthe pro-embryonic stem cell category. Other Political advisers whose stance on ES-cell research is not articulated. Members of the Clinton administration. Also may include literary or historical figures like Aldous Huxley, Thomas Jefferson, or figures from history or works of literature. Simply put a hatch mark for each new source that is introduced. For example, if Tommy Thompson, director of Health and Human Services, is quoted more than once in an article (either directly quoted or paraphrased), include only one hatch mark in the Bush administration box. If multiple sources of equal rank are quoted directly, give each source a hatch mark. For example, if Senators Strom Thurmond, Connie Mack and Arlen Specter are all quoted within the same article, place three hatch marks in the box where marked Republican pro-ES cell research.

PAGE 81

73 Any statement attributed to a person or group and nestled between quotation marks should be counted as a direct quote regardless of length. For example, direct quotes limited to brief phrases of two to five words still should be considered direct quotes. 17. List whether the article defines stem cell research in any way. The article may use technical language and take a paragraph or more to explain the technology, or the article may include just a short, lay-language definition that is one sentence or less. In either of these scenarios, circle (1) Yes. 18. If the answer to the previous question was yes, then categorize the definition of stem cell research. If the explanation was brief and on a basic level, circle (1) Basic. For example, if the article states that stem cells are the basic building blocks of the body and gives no further explanation, circle (1) Basic. If the article offers a more detailed, in-depth description of how stem cells are harvested, cloned, grown, etc. then circle (2) Detailed. For example: hematopoietic stem cells are the source in the bone marrow from which a constant stream of red and white blood cells is produced throughout a persons life. Like embryonic stem cells, they can renew themselves indefinitely, but their potential is restricted to making just the cells of the blood system (Wade 2001). 19. Determine whether the article outlines the ethical or moral implications in any way (use the following two questions to help you make this determination). Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. 20. Note whether the article mentions that embryos must be destroyed in order to extract embryonic stem cells. Other terminology may include: sacrificing, killing, or taking a human life. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. 21. Note whether the article mentions that embryos leftover from in vitro fertility treatments are often discarded. Other terminology may refer to these embryos in a number of ways: excess, surplus, spare, not needed, in excess of clinical need, or would otherwise be thrown away. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. 22. Indicate whether the article refers to the potential of stem cell research to yield treatment for specific disease(s). Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. If yes, then indicate which diseases. 23. Does the article mention human cloning or allude to this procedure? (0) No (1) Yes 24. Does the article use the term adult stem cells or stem cells derived from adult cells? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. 25. Does the article use the term embryonic stem cells or stem cells derived from human embryos? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.

PAGE 82

74 26. Indicate whether the article delineates between embryonic and adult stem cell research in any way. For example, does it clarify how the cells differ in origin or in application? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. 27. Indicate whether the article mentions policy or stances on stem cell research taken by other nations and/or the threat that the U.S. may be left behind. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. _____________________________ Frame Analysis: After reading through the article, determine what primary frame was used. Often this can be reduced to a short catch-phrase (e.g., horse race) although you may use longer phrases or descriptive words if necessary. In order to determine the frame used, you will need to take into account the main topic of the story and key terminology. Also consider which sources are quoted and where in the story the sources are featured. Some stories may feature a secondary frame. If so, please record this.

PAGE 83

REFERENCES Anderson, D.J., F.H. Gage and I.L. Weissman. 2001. Can stem cells cross lineage boundaries? Nature Medicine 7: 393-395. Andsager J. and L. Smiley. 1998 Evaluating the public information: Shaping news coverage of the silicone implant controversy. Public Relations Review 24 (2): 183-201. Associated Press. 2004. Stem cell research becomes a wedge issue for GOP moderates. USA Today: Oct. 19. Bartels, W.-L. 2002. Defining agricultural biotechnology: A framing analysis of newspaper coverage of the Starlink corn incident in the United States from August 2000 to December 2000. Unpublished masters thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Berke, R. 2001 The Presidents decision: The constituencies; Bush appears to have straddled a divide. The New York Times: Aug. 11. Blum, D., and M. Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University. Bodmer, W. 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society. Bridges, J. A. and R. A. Nelson. 2000. Issues Management: A relational approach. In Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. S. D. Brunig. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum: 95-115. Brown, J.D., C.R. Bybee, S.T. Weardon, and D.M. Straughan. Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity" Journalism Quarterly 64: 45-54. Bruni, F. 2001. The president's decision: News analysis; Of principles and politics. The New York Times: Aug. 10. Brush, S. 2005. Hoping to avoid brain drain, states push to finance stem-cell research. Chronicle of Higher Education: Feb. 4. Bush, G.W. 2005. State of the union address. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2. Bush, L. 2004. Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush at Victory '04 Rally in St. Augustine, Florida: Oct. 24. 75

PAGE 84

76 Carey, J. W. 1975. Communication and culture. Communication Research 2: 173-190. Carpenter, L. M. 1998. From girls into women: scripts for sexuality and romance in Seventeen magazine, 1974-1994. The Journal of Sex Research 35 (2): 158-168. Charo, A. R. 2001. Are we playing God? Or playing human? The Washington Post, Aug. 12. Chase, M. 1998. Costly blood storage pitched as a hedge to expectant parents. Wall Street Journal: April 27. Clark, J. 2001. Squandering our technological future. The New York Times: Aug. 31. CNN.com. 2002. Reeve: Fund embryonic stem cell research. Published online July 17, 2002. Accessed March 14, 2005. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/24/reeve.stemcell.focus/ Cohen, R. 2001a. The stem cell student. The Washington Post: July 17. Cohen, R. 2001b. The mad scientist bogeyman. The Washington Post: Aug. 7. Connolly, C. 2001a. Connolly, C. 2001b. Legislators see opening on stem cell studies: In a divided Congress, lawmakers are writing bills, scheduling hearings and lobbying President. The Washington Post, July 17. Connor, K. 2001. Stem cells: Bush's broken promise. The Washington Post: Aug. 10. Covello, V.T., and B.B. Johnson. 1987. The social and cultural construction of risk: Issues, methods, and case studies. In The social and cultural construction of risk: Essays on risk selection and perception, edited by B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello. Dordecht, Holland: Reidel. Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dreifus, C. 2004 Two friends, 242 eggs and a breakthrough: A conversation with Woo Suk Hwang and Shin Young Moon. The New York Times: Feb. 17. Dunwoody, S. 1999. Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, edited by S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Durant, J.R. 1993. What is scientific literacy? In Science and Culture in Europe edited by J. Durant and J. Gregory, 129-36. Wilts, UK: Antony Rowe.

PAGE 85

77 Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, et al. 1989. "The public understanding of science." Nature 340: 11-14. Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elias, P. 2004. Scientists rally around stem cell advocate sacked by Bush. USA Today: March 18. Entman, R. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification in a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43:51-58. Ericson, R., P. Baranek and J. Chan. 1989. Negotiating control: A study of news sources. Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. Fassi, C.R. 2002. United States Human Stem Cell Policy Making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Fountain, J.W. 2001 President's decision does not end the debate. The New York Times: Aug. 12. Friedman, S., S. Dunwoody, and C. Rogers. 1999. Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gans, H. 1979. Deciding What's News. New York: Vintage Books. Gearhart, J. 1998. New potential for human embryonic stem cells. Science 282(5391): 1061-1062. Gibson, R. and D. Zillman. 1993. The impact of quotation in news reports on issue perception. Journalism Quarterly 70: 793-800. Gibson, R. and D. Zillman. 1998. Effects of citation in exemplifying testimony on issue perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 70: 793-800. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goldstein, A. 2001. Bush stem cell policy cools fervor on Hill. The Washington Post: Aug. 11. Gregory, J. and S. Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group. Hall, S.S. 2004. Specter of cloning may prove a mirage. The New York Times. Feb. 17. Hartz, J. and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's Future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.

PAGE 86

78 Hertog, J., and D. McLeod. 2001. A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by S. Reese, O. Gandy and A. Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hovland, D. and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 635-50. Hwang, W. S., Y. J. Ryu, et al. 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303: 1669-1674. Irving, D. 1999. When do human beings begin. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 19 (3-4):22-46. Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaplan, K. 2005. Study says all stem cell lines tainted. Los Angeles Times: Jan. 24. Kass, L.R. 2003. Biotechnology: a house divided / a reply. Public Interest 150: 38-62. Kolata, G. 1995. Crucial advance made in blood cell research. The New York Times, Jan. 26. LaFollette, M. 1995. Editorial -wielding history like a hammer. Science Communication. 16: 235-241. Lakshmi, Rama. 2001. India plans to fill void in stem cell research; Scientists say restrictions in U.S. may give them advantage in development. The Washington Post: Aug. 28. Lindlof, B.C. and T.R. Taylor. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. MacDonald, C. 2001. Stem cells: A pluripotent challenge. BioScan 13(4): 7-8. Martin, M.J., A. Muotri, F. Gage and A. Varki. 2005. Human embryonic stem cells express an immunogenic nonhuman sialic acid. Nature Medicine. Advance online publication, Jan. 30: 1-5. McCombs, M. and D.L. Shaw. 1973. The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 36(2): 176-187. McNeil, D. G. 2001. In a tiny room in Sweden, a large trove of stem cells. The New York Times: Aug. 29. Miller, J. D. 1987. Scientific literacy in the United States. In Communicating Science to the Public. Editede by D. Evered and M. O'Connor. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

PAGE 87

79 Miller, J.D. and L. Kimmel. 2001. Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies. New York: Academic Press. Miller, J.D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada. Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences. Miller, M., and B. Reichert. 2001. The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by S. Reese, O. Gandy and A. Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Public Radio. 2001. Talk of the Nation/Science Friday. Ira Flatow, moderator: March 2. National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Nisbet, M.C. 2004. Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly. 68(1): 131-154. Nisbet, M.C., D. Brossard and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 8(2): 36-70. Nisbet, M.C., D.A. Scheufele, et al. 2002. Knowledge, reservations or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research. 29(5): 584-608. Office of the Press Secretary. 2004. Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in second 2004 presidential debate. St. Louis, MO: Oct. 9. Pianin, E. 2001. House speaker reveals opposition to stem cell research. The Washington Post July 30. Pollack, A. 2001. The promise in selling stem cells. The New York Times: Aug. 26. Powers, A. and F. Fico. 1994. Influences on use of sources at large U.S. newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal 15: 87-97. Priest, S.H. 1999. Popular beliefs, media, and biotechnology. In Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, edited by S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 88

80 Priest, S.H. 2001. A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Reese, S. 2003. Prologue--Framing public life: a bridging model for media research. 2001. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World edited by S. Reese, O. Gandy and A. Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Regaldo, A., L. McGinley and S. Lueck. 2001. Top researcher of stem cells to move abroad. Wall Street Journal: July 16. Rensberger, B. 1997. Covering science for newspapers. A Field Guide for Science Writers. D. Blum and M. Knudson. New York: Oxford University Press. Roefs, W. 1998. From framing to frame theory: a research method turns theoretical concept. Conference proceedings of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: Baltimore, MD. Rogers, C.L. 1999. The importance of understanding audiences. Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. L. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scheufele, D.A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication. 49(1): 103-122. Schmid, L.A. 2004. Newspaper Framing of Postpartum Depression: Impact of the Andrea Yates Case. Unpublished master's thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Shaw, D. 2000. Medical miracles or misguided media? Los Angeles Times. Feb. 13. Shoemaker, P.J. and S.D. Reese. 1991. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman. Silver, L.M. 2001. Watch what you are calling an embryo; and other subtleties that define the debate. The Washington Post: Aug. 19. Slater, M.D. and D. Rouner. 1996. How message evaluation and source attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73(4): 974-991. Stanley, A. 2001. Bush's travels: visit to John Paul; Bush hears Pope condemn research in human embryos. The New York Times: July 24. Stolberg, C.G. 2001. New stem cell issues. The Washington Post: Sept. 3. Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 89

81 Ten Eyck, T. A. and M. Williment. 2003. The national media and things genetic: Coverage in The New York Times (1971-2001) and The Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication 25(2): 129-152. Thomson, J.A., J. Itskovitz-Eldor, S.S. Shapiro, M.A. Waknitz, J.J. Swiergiel, V.S. Marshall and J.M. Jones. 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282 (5391): 1145-1147. Time. 2004. The passions behind social issues. 164(17): 36-37. Todd, Z., B. Newlich, S. McKeown, and D. Clarke. 2004. Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory of practice. New York: Francis and Routledge. Toner, R. 2001. Bush caught in the middle on research on stem cells. The New York Times: Feb. 18. Trumbo, C. 2004. Research methods in mass communication research: A census of eight journals 1990-2000. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 81(2): 417-436. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2001. Letter to Congress on public funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research. July 10. Retrieved online on March 14, 2005. http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell71001.htm USA Today. 2003. USA's stem-cell scientists fear a research "brain drain." May 12. Varmus, H. 2000. The challenge of making laws on the shifting terrain of science. Selected proceedings of Genes and Society: Impact of New Technologies on Law, Medicine and Policy. Special supplement 28(4): 46-53. Wade, N. 2000. Teaching the body to heal itself; Work on cells' signals fosters talk of a new medicine. The New York Times: Nov. 7. Wade, N. 2001a Grappling with the ethics of stem cell research. The New York Times: July 24. Wade, N. 2001b. List of stem cell researchers shows hands had been tied. The New York Times: Aug. 28. Walker, D. K. 1997. Saving cord blood a tough call for parents. Chicago Sun-Times: Oct. 19. Waterman, A.T. 1960. National Science Foundation: A ten-year resume. Science. 131: 1341-1354.

PAGE 90

82 Weiss, R. 2001a. Bush backs broad ban on human cloning; prohibition would cover embryos for research. The Washington Post: June 21. Weiss, R. 2001b. Scientists use embryos made only for research. The Washington Post: July 11. Weiss, R. 2001c. Promising more--and less; Scientists see growth in field, lament limits. The Washington Post: Aug. 10. Wilkie, T. 1996. Sources in science: Who can we trust? Lancet 347: 1308-11. Withey, S.B. 1959. Public opinion about science and the scientist. Public Opinion Quarterly. 23: 382-388. Wolfe, A. 2001. Bush's gift to America's extremists. The New York Times: Aug. 19. Zimmerman, S.V. 2003. Does the State Have Any Business in the Laboratories of the Nation? The Regulation of Scientific Research. Unpublished master's thesis. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. Zoch, L.M. and VanSlyke Turk, J. 1999. Women making news: Gender as a variable in source selection. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 75(4): 762-775.

PAGE 91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH As a young girl I spent countless hours exploring science: catching crayfish in the creek near my house, questioning why orb spiders weave patterns into their webs, and chasing lightning bugs on warm summer nights. I have always been fascinated with what makes life tick -the hows and whys behind the smallest things. This curiosity led me to a number of different pursuits. I majored in biology at Smith College in Northampton, Mass. I worked in genetic research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and at the University of Florida. Over the years, I realized that my gift is not in doing science, but in learning about science and sharing its wonders with others. I revel in the challenge of taking highly technical, complex scientific information and presenting it in a way that people like my grandparents will actually understand. I enjoy removing the jargon and mumbo-jumbo to show people the real "wow" of science. This passion led me to pursue a masters degree in science/health communication. I now stand at a new crossroads, unsure of where things might lead. No doubt, I wish to continue along the same veins, sharing science with those who might not otherwise taste its richness. However, I am undecided about which direction to pursue. I am confident that my educational and life experiences, along with the loving support of my friends and family, will help lead me to the next stage of my career. 83


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011426/00001

Material Information

Title: Promise or Peril: How Elite Newspapers Frame Stem Cell Research
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011426:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011426/00001

Material Information

Title: Promise or Peril: How Elite Newspapers Frame Stem Cell Research
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011426:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PROMISE OR PERIL:
HOW ELITE NEWSPAPERS FRAME STEM CELL RESEARCH














By

KIMBERLY RICE TAYLOR


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005
































For Joan, a strong and beautiful woman who has always loved me, believed in me, and
encouraged me to shoot for the stars. Thanks for everything, Mom.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my chair, Debbie Treise, for recruiting me to this wonderful program. Who

knew I'd ever find a graduate program that could combine my disparate interests? She

pushed me to make the most of the program and helped me to accomplish more than I

thought was possible. She has been a phenomenal advocate and a pillar of strength, even

when I stumbled.

I thank Mike Weigold, for leading vibrant and engaging discussions in our public

policy class. He challenged me to push past my existing assumptions on complex issues. I

have never met anyone else so adept at playing devil's advocate.

I thank Robyn Goodman for her understanding, encouragement, and fabulous

deadpan humor. In a stressful time like graduate school, the power of laughter cannot be

underestimated.

I also acknowledge that I couldn't have done this without my family. My sister and

my mother, despite the fact that they are each thousands of miles away, have been

amazing sources of strength for me. I thank them for their continued love and support.

And finally, to my grandparents may they see the benefits of this promising

technology within their lifetimes.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... vii

ABSTRACT ................................................... ................. viii

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ................................................. .............................................. .

2 LITER A TU R E R EV IEW .................................................................... ...............6...

Stem Cell Research ................... .. ............. .................................6
Foundations and Term inology.................. ....................................................6...
Sources of Pluripotent Stem C ells.................................................... ...............7...
Sources of M ultipotent Stem Cells....................................................8...
Ethical D ebate over Stem Cells ........................ ............................................8...
Stakeholders in the Stem Cell D ebate ................................................... 10
Key Events in Stem Cell Research and Policy ...................................... ................ 13
Initial Policies on Stem Cell R research ........................................... ................ 13
Election 2000 and Stem Cell R research .......................................... ................ 14
Election 2004 and Stem Cell R research .......................................... ................ 15
Stem C ell R research A broad............................................................ ............... 17
State L legislation .......................................................................................... 17
T ainted C ell L ines ................ .............. ............................................ 18
Science and the Public ... ................................................................... ... ............ 19
Scientific L iteracy .............. ...... ............. ............................................... 19
Public Perception of Science ....................... ............................................... 20
Science and the M edia ... ... .................... ................................................ 21
M edia Coverage of Science Issues ................................................... 21
M edia Coverage of Biotechnology Issues...................................... ................ 23
F ram in g ..................................................................................................... ....... .. 2 5
Fram ing Overview ... ................................................................................ 25
S o u rc e s ............................................................................................................ . 2 8
Research Questions .......................... ........... ............................... 30









3 M E T H O D S ................................................................................................................. 3 1

M ixed M methods ..................................................................................................... 31
M methodology ................................................................................ ....................... 32
N ew papers .................................................................................................... 33
Tim e Fram e .......................................................................................... . 33
Article Selection ............................................34
D ata Collection and A nalysis...........................................................................35
V alidity and R liability ....................................................................................36

4 R E S U L T S .......................................................................................... ..................... 3 7

F ram es U sed ......................................................................................................... 37
The "U uncertainty" Fram e ................................................................................. 38
The "Battle/Debate" Frame ..................... .........................................40
T he "P rom ise" F ram e ..................................................................... ...............4 1
The "Playing G od" Fram e................................................................................43
The "Excess Em bryos" Fram e..........................................................................44
The "Econom ic" Fram e ....................................................................................44
Sources Q uoted ............................................................................ ... .....................44
Scientists, Administrators and Science Policy Analysts ..................................45
Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups ....................................................................46
B ush A dm inistration .........................................................................................46
R religious G roups ...........................................................................................46
Ethicists ................................................. ...................................47
Republican Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research ..............................................47
Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups ..................................................................47
Republican Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research............................................48
Democratic Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research .............................. ...............48
C e le b ritie s ..................... ........ ...................................................... 4 8
Democratic Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research ............................. ...............48
O their Sources .....................................................................................................49
Definition and Characterization of Stem Cell Research..........................................49
C lo n in g .............................................. ................................................ ..................... 5 2
U united States versus Other N nations .........................................................................53

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ..................... ...................................57

Fram e A analysis ........................................................................................................57
Use of "Uncertainty" and "Battle/Debate".......................................................58
U se of O their Fram es .........................................................................................61
Stakeholder A analysis ........................................................................................62
Embryonic Stem Cells vs. Adult Stem Cells....................................................62
Cloning and Stem Cell R esearch......................................................................63
United States-Global Leader or Lagging Behind? ............................ ...............64
C o n c lu sio n s ................................................................................................................. 6 4
Lim stations and Future Research.............................................................................66


v









APPENDIX

A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET ............... .............. ..................... 68

B INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET................... 70

R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................................................. 7 5

BIO GR APH ICAL SK ETCH .................................................................... ................ 83















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 Prim ary fram es sorted by publication ................................................. ................ 37

2 Primary frames sorted by article type .................................................................38

3 Sources directly quoted w within articles ............................................... ................ 45

4 Definition and Characterization of stem cell research ........................................50

5 E thical/m oral im plication s ........................................ ....................... ................ 5 1

6 Adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. ..................................................52

7 R eferences to hum an cloning .................................... ...................... ................ 52

8 R eferences to other nations ....................................... ....................... ................ 54















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

PROMISE OR PERIL:
HOW ELITE NEWSPAPERS FRAME STEM CELL RESEARCH

By

Kimberly Rice Taylor

August 2005

Chair: Debbie M. Treise
Major Department: Mass Communication

Stem cell research burst onto the national media scene in 1998. Subsequent

coverage has described it as a promising new field tinged with both complexity and

controversy. This study sought to understand how elite newspapers, namely The New

York Times and The Washington Post, portrayed the issues surrounding stem cell

research. A textual analysis was performed on 171 articles published from August 2000

through September 2001. An inductive analysis found that a frame of uncertainty

dominated coverage.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Human embryonic stem cell research burst onto the national print media scene in

November 1998, following an article published by Dr. James A. Thomson, a

developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Thomson reported in

the November 6, 1998, issue of Science that he and his research team had isolated and

cloned human embryonic stem cells, making them the first scientists to do so (Thomson

1998).

Stem cells are important because they can be seen as the "utility and repair units of

the body that serve a central function in the maintenance and regeneration of organs and

tissues throughout life" (Nisbet 2004, p. 131). Scientists have long thought of stem cells

as a potential panacea in treating sickness and disease. By isolating these cells, Thomson

and his team ended the scientific community's 30-year quest for a reliable source of

human embryonic stem cells and cracked open the debate over these promising but

contentious cells.

Prior to Thomson's publication, The New York Times and The Washington Post

published just a handful of stories each year that featured stem cell research. Early stories

on stem cell research focused primarily on stem cell transplantation and on umbilical

cord blood. Stem cell transplantation is a therapy in which stem cells can be injected into

patients, typically those suffering from leukemia, lymphoma and certain inherited blood

disorders, to boost their immune response. Stem cell transplantation can also be used in

gene therapy as a way to correct gene defects in patients suffering from certain genetic









conditions. Umbilical cord blood banking garnered attention because cord blood is rich in

stem cells and can be used in stem cell transplantation therapies. Earlier articles featured

the pros and cons of banking cord blood, namely whether or not parents should consider

this costly but perhaps life-saving medical technology to safeguard the future health of

their family (Walker 1997; Chase 1998).

Following Thomson's Science article in November 1998, media coverage of stem

cell research surged; stem cell research has been highlighted in thousands of stories in

The Washington Post and The New York Times alone. The projected promise of the

technology has no doubt contributed to its media prominence. Embryonic stem cells have

an infinite life span, making them ideal candidates for laboratory research on cellular

development. Unlike regular body cells that divide a given number of times and then die,

stem cells are immortal (Kolata 1995). This immortality makes them attractive candidates

for disease therapies. Another desirable trait of embryonic stem cells is that they have the

ability to develop into any cell in the body, a feature known as "pluripotency," making

them strong candidates for a number of disease therapies.

Despite the promises of these all-purpose cells, they are not without drawbacks and

controversy. The primary source for pluripotent stem cells is embryos, explaining why

pluripotent cells have been dubbed "embryonic stem cells" in media coverage. This

source of cells has caused quite a stir among conservative political and religious groups.

The Catholic Church is perhaps the most vocal opponent of stem cell research originating

from embryos. The Church teaches that all life, from the moment of conception, is

sacred. Thus, using fertilized embryos for research is considered morally unacceptable. It

should be noted that the Church sees no difference between naturally fertilized embryos









and those generated in a lab via artificial insemination, nor does it condone the use of

donated embryos that are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures.

Scientists have also developed a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to

generate pluripotent stem cells. By definition, these pluripotent stem cells are not derived

from traditional embryos. The trouble is that the media refer to nearly all pluripotent stem

cells as "embryonic" stem cells, regardless of the cells' origin. This lack of clarity may

lead to confusion among the public. Indeed, stem cell research is a complex and multi-

faceted topic. Even individuals who are well-versed in science may struggle to make

heads or tails of this situation. The nuances in terminology can be difficult to understand,

especially since some of the terms (e.g., embryo) are already emotionally charged.

Research has shown that Americans have a bipolar attitude about science and

technology (Miller et al., 1997; Nisbet et al. 2002). Americans believe in science's

promise for new cures but at the same time feel uncomfortable with the pace of science

and often distrust it. Given this disposition, it would not be surprising if the public were

unable to come to consensus on the stem cell debate.

One way to help the public reach consensus on an issue is through media coverage

of that issue (Miller and Reichert 2001). Science stories rank among the best read in

newspapers, on par with sports stories, reflecting the public's fascination with science

(Rensberger 1997). A recent study found that close to 50% of Americans were very

interested in science discoveries and new technologies, 70% in medical discoveries, and

52% in environmental issues (Rogers 1999). Indeed, the public relies heavily on print

media for information on science, health and technology topics:

For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the press. They
understand science less through direct experience or past education than through









the filter of journalistic language and imagery. The media are their only contact
with what is going on in rapidly changing scientific and technical fields, as well as
a major source of information about the implications of these changes for their lives
(Nelkin 1995, p. 2).

The print news media are also important because they set the agenda for science

coverage in other outlets. Newspapers are "the front lines of science communication, the

places where most science stories show up first, before they appear in magazines, long

before they're in books, usually years before television documentaries cover them"

(Rensberger 1997). Thus, newspaper coverage of stem cell research plays a critical role

in shaping the evolution of this topic. Journalists must portray the issue clearly and

completely so that people can be well informed and come to their own conclusions on the

topic. Journalists' portrayal of the topic can have both an individual and a collective

impact; public opinion has been shown to influence public policy and governmental

funding of science issues.

Public opinion on any given topic can be influenced by a number of variables,

including media coverage of the topic. The way media present, or "frame," an issue can

influence readers' opinions about that issue (Iyengar 1991). Therefore, the purpose of this

study was to examine how The New York Times and The Washington Post, both

recognized as trendsetters in the media realm, have framed the issue of stem cell research.

These elite papers have the potential to influence the national media agenda, suggesting

that they are but one step away from influencing public opinion. As the dominant

newspaper in the nation's capital, The Washington Post has the ability to influence

general readers, as well as policymakers.

Stem cell research, given its potential for disease therapies, is a critical topic facing

American society. Framing studies on the elite news media can help complete the picture






5


of how the media might influence public opinion about stem cell research, and

subsequently stem cell research policy. This qualitative study builds on existing framing

studies of stem cell research that have taken a quantitative approach (Nisbet et al. 2003)

by providing insight into the rich, descriptive terminology used in media coverage of the

debate.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Stem Cell Research

Foundations and Terminology

For decades, scientists studying human development did so via animals. This early

research revealed a new class of cells called "stem cells," which are the body's

fundamental building block. Because they are "undifferentiated," these cells are capable

of developing into a number of cell types in the body. It should be noted that there is a

range of usefulness among stem cells. This usefulness is sometimes referred to as

"plasticity," that is a cell's ability to transform into other cell or tissue types.

"Pluripotent" stem cells can differentiate into any other cell type, making them a favorite

among scientists for developing new therapies. Most pluripotent stem cells lines have

been derived from embryos, hence the term "embryonic stem cells." "Multipotent" stem

cells also hold great promise, though are more restricted in how they can develop. These

cells have differentiated past the level of pluripotency into a specialized state (Anderson,

Gage and Weissman 2001).

Although animal pluripotent stem cells had been isolated many years prior, it

wasn't until 1998 that researchers were able to isolate and grow human pluripotent stem

cells in the laboratory. Subsequent work has shown that these cells have the capability of

developing into nearly any cell or tissue type in the body, hinting at possibilities for

therapeutic applications.









Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells

Pluripotent stem cells come namely from embryonic or fetal tissue. Embryonic

stem cells (ES cells) are retrieved from a group of cells known as the inner cell mass (part

of the blastocyst) about four to five days after an embryo's fertilization. These cells can

differentiate from their current unspecialized state into virtually any type of cell or tissue.

The first possible source of such cells is surplus embryos that are a by-product of in vitro

fertilization (IVF) labs. The second potential source of ES cells is from embryos

generated in the lab by uniting donated eggs and sperm. Another source of pluripotent

stem cells is the embryonic germ (reproductive) cells that can be taken from aborted

fetuses. Under the right laboratory conditions, embryonic stem cells can reproduce

indefinitely, a trait not shared by adult stem cells.

Pluripotent stem cells can also be derived through a process called somatic cell

nuclear transfer (SCNT), also known as "therapeutic cloning." Here, genetic material

from a regular body cell (a "somatic" cell) is transplanted into an egg cell (a "germ" cell)

that has had all of its genetic information removed. This fusion creates a hybrid cell that

"can be induced to behave like a fertilized egg" (Hall 2004, p.2).

This technique is often referred to as cloning because the resulting cell is

genetically identical to the original body cell. However, it is important to note that no

embryos (i.e. a union of sperm and egg) are used in this process. Somatic cell nuclear

transfer is the technique used by the South Korean researchers whose work appeared in

the media spotlight in early 2004 and triggered a renewed call for a ban on what is known

as "reproductive cloning" (Hwang, Ryu et al. 2004). Opponents fear that these hybrid

embryos could be grown into full-fledged human beings. However, scientists argue that

the technology is not that advanced. The hybrid embryos differ from normal embryos and









can be "riddled with genetic abnormalities," giving them "little if any potential to ever

develop into a normal human being" (Hall 2004, p.2).

Sources of Multipotent Stem Cells

Multipotent stem cells are cells that the media refers to primarily as "adult" stem

cells. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found in specialized tissue such as the

blood or brain and can yield specialized cell types, though in a much more limited

fashion from embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can typically replicate for the life of

the organism but do not share the same infinite reproducibility of embryonic stem. It

should be noted that "adult" stem cells need not be derived from adults. Stem cells

derived from cord blood (i.e. fetal umbilical cord blood) are multipotent, not pluripotent,

and thus can be termed "adult" stem cells. They do, however, have more potential than

adult stem cells derived from mature tissues.

At this point, adult stem cells are the only type of stem cells that have been used in

human disease therapies. Scientists have used stem cells derived from bone marrow in

transplantation therapies for over 40 years. Stem cells used in stem cell transplantations

are called "hematopoetic stem cells" since they are derived from the blood-forming cells

in the bone marrow.

Despite the inherent differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research,

newspaper coverage does not always discern between the two. This may serve to

complicate the public's understanding and attitudes toward the already charged

discussions about stem cell research.

Ethical Debate over Stem Cells

The debate over stem cell research hinges on "competing facts and values" that

span "the multiple arenas of science, ethics, religion, business, politics and









administration" (Fassi 2002, p. 7). The stem cell debate incorporates elements from "the

abortion debate, the cloning debate, the fetal tissue debate, the transplant debate, the gene

therapy debate, the animal rights debate and even a debate" about human longevity

(National Public Radio 2001).1 Although the topic is multifaceted, major contention

seems to circle around a number of ethical and moral dilemmas, namely when life begins

and ends, as well as when is it acceptable to compromise life. Given what is at stake, it is

not surprising that the debate has been so prolonged and so heated:

when the search for balanced reasonableness and respect for human dignity are
interpreted through multiple and competing perspectives in the development of
policy, the conflict persists and is rarely resolved (Fassi 2000, p.2)

The American Association for the Advancement of Science sums up the various

sides quite eloquently in their online briefing on stem cell research:

Opponents of ES cell research hold that human life begins as soon as an egg is
fertilized, and they consider a human embryo to be a human being. They therefore
consider any research that necessitates the destruction of a human embryo to be
morally abhorrent. Proponents of ES cell research, meanwhile, point out that in the
natural reproductive process, human eggs are often fertilized but fail to implant in
the uterus. A fertilized egg, they argue, while it may have the potential for human
life, cannot be considered equivalent to a human being until it has at least been
successfully implanted in a woman's uterus (accessed March 13, 2005,
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells).

This is much the same controversy that has swirled around the issue of abortion.

The American Life League sees the embryo as "the tiniest person," worth standing up for

and defending (Toner 2001). Opponents are concerned not only about the use of existing

embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, but also about the creation of embryos

expressly for research purposes. Pope John Paul II refers to the latter as "an evil akin to



1 This statement is excerpted from National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation/Science Friday" program
which aired on March 2, 2001. The statement was made by Glenn McGee, assistant professor at the
University of Pennsylvania and editor in chief of the American Journal for Bioethics.









euthanasia and infanticide" (Stanley 2001). President Bush said that he recoils at the idea

of "creating life for our own convenience" (Charo 2001). Additional concerns exist that

this will only be the beginning of a "Frankenscience" that ultimately will lead to cloning

humans.

Proponents extend their arguments to include embryos generated in fertility clinics.

Many of these artificially created embryos are inviable and will never result in life. In an

effort to boost their chances of success, hopeful parents often end up with more frozen

embryos than they will have implanted. Proponents argue that these should be available

for embryonic stem cell research since most of these artificially created embryos will

otherwise be discarded.

Certain opponents of embryonic stem cell research including the Catholic Church

have argued that embryonic stem cell research should be abandoned in favor of adult

stem cell research. These opponents maintain that adult stem cells hold just as much

promise as do embryonic stem cells. Most scientists, however, disagree citing recent

scientific articles that have shown that adult stem cells lack the pluripotency of

embryonic stem cells.

In the broadest sense, the discussion about stem cell research can be reduced to the

importance of human life, whether it be the life of an unborn embryo or the life of an

adult suffering from a life-threatening disease: "The debate is crucially connected to

emotionally charged and deeply held values about the creation of, respect for, and

amelioration of human life" (Fassi 2002, p. 3).

Stakeholders in the Stem Cell Debate

As was suggested above, a number of stakeholders are involved in the conflict, and

they are all vying for their voices to be heard. Stakeholder groups that oppose embryonic









stem cell research include conservative political and religious groups. Opponents from

the Republican Party have included Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts,

Sam Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon and Tom Delay; Interest groups have

included the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council (Nisbet et al. 2003).

Among the various religious groups opposing stem cell research, Catholic interests

have been cited most frequently in media coverage (Nisbet, Brossard and Kroepsch

2003). The Catholic Church has a staunch position against any research that involves the

creation of or the taking of a human life. This rules out all forms of embryonic stem cell

research, including research using somatic-cell nuclear transfer. The United States

Conference of Catholic Bishops (2001) urged Congress to ban embryonic stem cell

research altogether, citing that the estimated promise of the technology did not outweigh

the realities behind it:

In his great novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky raised the question
whether it would be right to build a world without human suffering if "it was
essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny creature" such as an innocent
child to achieve that end. Each of us must answer that ultimate question in the
depths of his or her own conscience. The claim that destructive embryo research
will achieve such a utopian end is, we believe, a hollow promise. In the meantime,
however, the killing will be quite real (USCCB 2001).

In an interesting twist, several otherwise-conservative politicians voiced their

support for stem cell research. Former senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Strom Thurmond

(S.C.) were both ardent pro-life Republicans, yet both believed that embryonic stem cell

research was worth investing in. Other GOP supporters featured by the media have

included Bill Frist, Connie Mack, John McCain, and Arlen Specter (Nisbet et al. 2003).

The most vocal supporters of stem cell research are scientists, patients and their

families, non-profit patient advocacy groups, and pro-industry advocacy groups. These









advocacy groups include the Coalition for Medical Research, Patient's Cure, and the

Biotechnology Industry Organization (Nisbet et al. 2003).

Celebrities have played a strong role in voicing their support for stem cell research.

For example, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has spoken out in favor of stem cell

research citing that it may yield a cure for Alzheimer's, the disease which plagued her

late husband. She has lent her name to various fundraising events for stem cell research,

including an initiative to raise $20 million for the stem cell research via the Juvenile

Diabetes Research Foundation.

Actor Christopher Reeve died in October 2004 but not before expressing his

overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. He believed that embryonic

stem cell research might hold the key to potential therapies for paralyzed Americans like

himself. He maintained that embryonic stem cell research could be conducted in an

ethical and moral fashion:

"You really don't have an ethical problem because you're actually saving lives by
using cells that are going to the garbage," Reeve said. "I just don't see how that's
immoral or unethical. I really don't" (CNN.com 2002).

Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, is another celebrity who

supports stem cell research. He appeared in television ads during the 2004 election urging

voters to consider the benefits of expanding stem cell research policy: "George Bush says

we can wait. I say lives are at stake and it's time for leadership" (Associated Press 2004).

Many scientists have collectively made their voice heard through the Union of

Concerned Scientists, a left-leaning advocacy group. They issued a statement in 2001

urging President Bush to promote federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The

union has since accused the Bush administration of "distorting scientific findings and

manipulating experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political









beliefs" (Elias 2004). Over 6,000 researchers have signed on and voiced their concern

over the administration's "misuse of science," including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National

Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Key Events in Stem Cell Research and Policy

Initial Policies on Stem Cell Research

The first major policy event specifically targeting stem cell research occurred

following a "crucial advance" made in 1994 at Harvard Medical School (Kolata 1995).

The scientists had refined a simple technique that could replace the existing cumbersome

method for isolating stem cells from blood. This simplified method was expected to open

the door for many new laboratories to undertake stem cell research. It also meant that

new gene therapies might not be far behind.

Congress attached an appropriations rider attached to the 1996 Departments of

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act (which included allocations for the Department of Health and Human Services and

NIH). The rider became known as the Dickey amendment after the bill's original author,

Former Representative Jay Dickey (R-Ark.),and has been retained by Congress every

year since 1996. The Dickey Amendment banned federal funding for research that

destroyed embryos, but it made no provisions related to research conducted with private

funds.

Thomson's groundbreaking research was conducted on excess embryos originally

conceived for in vitro fertilization that were donated anonymously. Since the research

focused on human embryos, it did not qualify for federal funding. Instead, Thomson's

research was financed through private funds from the Geron Corporation of Menlo Park,

Calif. The research caused quite a stir, with the scientific community heralding









Thomson's results as a "major technical achievement with great importance for human

biology" (Gearhart 1998, p. 1061).

Shortly after Thomson's research was published, President Clinton requested a

review of the issues surrounding stem cell research. In September 1999, the National

Bioethics Advisory Committee issued a report, "Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell

Research," which suggested a legal reinterpretation of the federal funding restrictions

contained within the Dickey Amendment. The report concluded that the federal

government could fund research on human ES cells, provided that private funds were

used to derive the stem cells from embryos left over from fertility treatments. By

December 1999, NIH had released draft guidelines allowing federally funded research on

ES cells derived in the private sector and on August 25, 2000, NIH released its final

guidelines and solicited applications for its first ES cell research grants.

Election 2000 and Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research was highlighted throughout the coverage of the 2000

presidential election with Republic presidential nominee George W. Bush declaring that

he opposed federal funding for any stem cell research that destroyed human embryos.

Clinton, both through his words and policy actions, supported federal funding for

embryonic stem cell research.

Following Bush's inauguration in February, six months followed before any policy

changes were issued. The press highlighted what they called the president's continued

indecision on the issue, until ultimately on August 9, 2001, Bush announced in a prime-

time television address that he would allow federal funding of research on existing

embryonic stem cell lines. This policy meant that no new cell lines could be derived









using federal funds, thus ensuring that the government would not be responsible for any

new embryos destroyed for the sake of stem cell research.

On August 14, 2002, the National Institutes of Health released a list of 78 stem cell

lines that qualified for federal research funding according to Bush's criteria: the stem

cells must have been removed from the embryo prior to August 9, 2001, the date the

president first outlined these criteria; .the embryo used in deriving the stem cells must no

longer have been viable, i.e. it could not be grown into a human; the embryo must have

been created for reproductive purposes; the embryo must have been collected with the

informed consent of the parents; and no financial compensation was provided.

However, the list was met with immediate criticism. Initial reports indicated that

only about 16 of the 78 eligible cell lines were available for distribution, with only a

handful making it into the hands of researchers. The most recent statistics from NIH were

released in the third quarter of 2004 and stated that 22 stem cell lines were available for

study by federally funded researchers.

Election 2004 and Stem Cell Research

Although stem cell research was not one of the galvanizing issues in Election 2004,

it did play a role in several of the debates and addresses. Senator Kerry, the opposing

candidate, primarily asserted that Bush's existing policy would not be sufficient and that

Bush was not acknowledging the realities of stem cell research, while Bush maintained

that he had zeroed in on a moral way to support stem cell research.

For example, during the second presidential debate the candidates were asked about

the wisdom of funding embryonic stem cells in research, given that the only human

disease therapies to-date have arisen from adult stem cell research. Kerry responded,

acknowledging the morality behind the question but maintaining that scientists can









conduct "ethically guided embryonic stem cell research" by using embryos that are

leftover from in vitro fertilization procedures:

We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from
fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that, they're
from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen. And I
believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's,
curing diabetes, curing some kind of a paraplegic or quadriplegic or a spinal cord
injury, anything -- that's the nature of the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to
reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way. And the
President's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I
want the future, and I think we have to grab it (Office of the Press Secretary 2004).

Kerry closed out his remarks in the second debate by returning to oft-heard criticisms

about the Bush's approved stem cell lines:

But let me tell you, point-blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available,
every scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're
contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70, there are only
about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because
they're contaminated (Office of the Press Secretary 2004).

Bush defended his stance, noting that he was the first president to ever allow

federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He emphasized that we must heed the

potential implications of stem cell research, noting that he took the approach he did out of

a respect for ethics and morality:

But I think -- I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the
science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond
the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is
ethics. So is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical
dilemmas that we face.... the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and
necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life ibidd).

While on the campaign trail, First Lady Laura Bush also played up Bush's support of

embryonic stem cell research. In cities across the nation she expressed her pride that her

husband was the first president to authorize federal funding for stem cell research and to









express that President Bush looks forward to future medical breakthroughs via stem cell

research.

Stem Cell Research Abroad

In February 2004, researchers from South Korea published an article in the online

issue of the journal Science revealing that they had created about 30 human blastocysts

using the somatic-cell nuclear transplant method. The publication reactivated concerns

over stem cell research, with opponents citing that this research was one step away from

cloning humans for reproductive purposes. Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of President Bush's

Council on Bioethics, and many others called for a complete ban on cloning, regardless

of purpose, in order to sidestep any slippery slope that might occur if therapeutic cloning

were left legal.

Korea is not the only nation that appears to have permissive policies on stem cell

research regulation. Counties such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland,

Sweden, China, India, Israel, Australia and New Zealand all have policies that explicitly

allow embryonic stem cell research. In nearly all cases where therapeutic cloning (i.e.

embryonic stem cell research) is allowed, reproductive cloning has been banned.

State Legislation

Although the U.S. federal government has restricted funding for human embryonic

stem cell research, individual states have the right to pass laws permitting human

embryonic stem cell research. This means that states can subsidize the cost for the

establishment of new human embryonic stem cell lines or research on cell lines that are

currently ineligible for federal funding. The voters of California were the first to act on

this work-around. In November 2004, voters passed Proposition 71, which provided for

the establishment of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The









initiative is expected to dole out $300 million per year for 10 years toward stem cell

research, including the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. This dollar amount

marks a ten-fold increase over the money allocated for stem cell research by the federal

government. Since California passed Proposition 71, lawmakers in other states have

taken up the charge, with a total of Wisconsin, New York and New Jersey have

introduced similar proposals.

Tainted Cell Lines

Kerry's predictions about tainted cell lines were confirmed within three months. In

January 2005, researchers at the University of California at San Diego and the Salk

Institute for Biological Studies reported that all federally approved human embryonic

stem cell lines were tainted with a foreign molecule from mice. This could mean that any

potential stem cell therapies tested in humans could fail because the human body would

reject the stem cells as foreign (Martin, Muotri et al. 2005).

One of the paper's authors, Dr. Ajit Varki, believes that this poses a dire problem

for U.S. researchers, who depend primarily on federal funding to support their work. "If

none of these funding issues and legal issues and ethical and moral issues existed, then it

would make sense to start over," he said (Kaplan 2005, p. 1). His comment suggests that

the government should rekindle the debate over whether the existing federal policy on

funding embryonic stem cell research is sufficient or whether the United States is missing

a key opportunity.

Despite growing doubt over the efficacy of the federally approved cell lines,

President Bush reaffirmed his position in his State of the Union Address on Feb. 2, 2005:

I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for
experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and









sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research
that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical (Bush 2005).

Thus, it seems unlikely under the current administration that any new policies will be

developed on the federal funding of embryonic stem cells.

Science and the Public

Scientific Literacy

The term "science literacy" originally was coined by Waterman (1960) and

represents the public's understanding of science. Science literacy goes beyond the ability

to define key scientific terms; it extends to understanding how science actually works and

how science can influence our daily lives. Historically, Americans have not been able to

satisfactorily explain what it means to study something scientifically (Withey 1959;

Miller 1987). It is believed that individuals who are scientifically literate will be able to

tell "good" science from "bad" science and to weigh the competing claims in science

discussions (Bodmer 1985).

Understanding the "whys" and howss" behind science is growing increasingly

important. We live in a world of increasing technological and scientific complexity in our

daily lives. The public needs to understand science in order to cope adequately

(Waterman 1960). However, it is not enough to "know" science, for example basic facts

such as the speed of light or the density of water. The public needs a thorough

understanding of science concepts and the methodology behind scientific research.

LaFollette (1995) wrote that "effective modern citizenship demands a higher level of

'knowing about' science" (p. 235).

Additionally, the degree to which everyday Americans understand science can

affect our nation's research agenda. Over the years, it has been demonstrated that the









degree of public understanding of science largely influences government support and

policy. Some authors have argued that support of scientific programs depends less on a

program's own merits than on public attention and understanding. Thus, the public's

science literacy in turn influences scientific progress.

The National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators survey is seen as

the most consistent indicator of science literacy. The first survey was conducted in 1979

and it has been conducted about every two years afterward with the most recent results

reported in 2002. Less than 15% of those surveyed felt well informed about science and

technology issues, while 30% felt poorly informed (National Science Board 2002).

Public Perception of Science

Analysis of the NSB survey data revealed that the American public possesses two

competing attitude constructs (Miller et al., 1997; Nisbet et al. 2002). The first construct

shows that Americans are uncertain about science and technology, citing concerns about

the pace of change and "a sense that science and technology pose conflicts with

traditional values or belief systems" (Nisbet et al, p. 588). The second construct reflects

that Americans believe in the promise of science and technology, and believe research

can yield "useful results and products for society" and provide "future benefits" to

society (Miller et al, 1997; Nisbet et. al., p. 588). Later studies revealed the same

diagnosis, stating that an inverse relationship exists between knowledge and doubt of new

scientific technologies (Miller and Kimmel 2001).

Despite the contentious debate over stem cells, the American public seems to favor

the research, both embryonic and adult. Two polls conducted during the 2004 election

showed a majority support for embryonic stem cell research among registered voters.

Time wrote that 69% of the 1,131 adults surveyed were in favor of using discarded









embryos for stem cell research, and that 50% felt that federal money should be used

(Time 2004). A Newsweek poll looked at the topic from a more general perspective and

found that 50% of the registered voters surveyed said they were for stem cell research.

One key element that has been repeated in the discussion of embryonic stem cells is

the source of the stem cells. Advocates say that leftover embryos from fertility clinics

pose a great opportunity. A study conducted in Sweden showed that couples who were

pursuing infertility treatment were overwhelmingly (92%) in favor of donating their

excess embryos for stem cell research rather than simply discarding them. Although the

culture and values are obviously different in Sweden than in the United States, this seems

like an encouraging result for those in support of embryonic stem cell research. A similar

study could be conducted here in the United States to gauge whether support would be as

strong.

Science and the Media

Media Coverage of Science Issues

The public can learn about science from a number of sources including science

classes, science museums, and interpersonal sources, but the most impressive source is

the media (Nelkin 1995; Nisbet et al. 2002). Newspapers cover more science stories than

any other form of media communication (Rensberger 1997). Not surprisingly then,

newspapers have been shown to be the public's primary source of science, technology

and health information, if not their "sole source of information and continuing education

about science" (Rensberger 1997, p. 8). Nelkin (1995) elegantly describes the importance

of print media in communicating science to the public:

Science writers, in effect, are brokers, framing social reality for their readers and
shaping the public consciousness about science-related events. Their selection of
news about science and technology sets the agenda for public policy. Their









representation of science news lays the foundation for personal attitudes and public
actions. They are often our only source of information about the scientific and
technical choices that significantly affect our work, our health, and our lives (p.
161).

The media can help the public become aware of pressing social issues via its

agenda-setting role. Although many scholars have written about agenda setting, its roots

trace back to the oft-cited 1973 paper by McCombs and Shaw. The authors introduced

the idea that the media's decision to cover an issue affects the public's perception of the

salience of that issue (McCombs and Shaw 1973). The media no doubt helped the public

become aware of stem cell research. Since the majority of Americans would never so

much as pick up an issue of Science, they would have had no way of knowing about

Thomson's breakthrough had it not been featured by the mass media.

It is clear that the media serve a crucial role in telling the public which science

issues are important to think about. However, the extent to which the media influence the

public's opinions about specific scientific topics is less definite. Researchers have found

an inverse correlation between newspaper use and reservations about science (Nisbet et

al. 2002). That is, individuals who read the newspaper are more likely to feel favorably

about scientific issues. Most daily newspapers and all elite newspapers already include a

certain amount of science-focused coverage. In fact, newspapers carry more science news

than more than any other mass communication media (Rensberger 1997). However,

researchers have differing opinions on the extent of media effects on public opinion.

Regardless of the extent to which newspapers sway people's opinions about science

topics, it is clear that newspapers remain the public's dominant source for science

information. Thus, it is worthwhile to examine media coverage of science topics in order









to fully understand what information the public is receiving about particular scientific

issues.

Media Coverage of Biotechnology Issues

Media scholars have looked at how the print media have framed a number of

scientific topics including environmental issues, genetically modified foods, nuclear

energy, etc. However, this study will focus solely on the framing of stem cell research.

Much of the elite print media's initial coverage of stem cell research attentively focused

on the potential risks of stem cell research, namely the destruction of human embryos.

Stem cell research is certainly not the first risky scientific topic covered by the press, nor

is risk a new concept to our society:

Risks to health, safety and the environment abound in the world and people cope as
best they can. But before action can be taken to control, reduce or eliminate risks,
decisions must be made about which risks are important and which risks can be
safely ignored (Covello and Johnson 1987, p. vii).

Risk has been a common element in media coverage of other biotechnology issues,

as has uncertainty (Bartels 2002; Priest 2001). Priest makes three assumptions regarding

media coverage of scientific debates: "Scientific futures are uncertain, the public has a

legitimate stake in defining public policy for science, and this role is better filled by an

educated than an ignorant citizenry" (Priest 2001, 100-101).









In the genetically modified food debate, the media helped influence the public's

general acceptance of genetically modified foods through its coverage of the issue.

Although the media did include elements of the public's skepticism over genetically

modified foods, the media gave greater attention to positive messages from stakeholders

in favor of genetically modified foods:

By overrepresenting the large-institution point of view and the ostensibly
monolithic character of U.S. public opinion, media accounts probably helped to
suppress the visibility of what dissent existed (Priest 2001, p. 61).

Another key element in the media's coverage of genetic technology has been its

comparison of international policies. Journalists have focused on U.S policy versus those

of other nations like Italy, Israel, India, and Great Britain (Ten Eyck and Williment

2003). The concern has been that if other countries develop more permissive regulatory

policies, then scientists may emigrate from the United States to pursue their work in those

countries. Journalists have echoed this concern in their coverage of stem cell research,

citing that current U.S. policies may lead to a potential "brain drain" to nations such as

the United Kingdom, Sweden, India or Singapore (Brush 2005: Regaldo, McGinley and

Lueck 2001; and USA Today 2003). This "brain drain" facet only complicates the stem

cell debate in the eyes of readers.

In multifaceted debates such as this, the media can help the public come to

decisions by providing information about an issue. Information may include context and

background on the issue, as well as viewpoints of various stakeholders. In the instance of

stem cell research, involved groups have included the scientific community, federal

government, political groups, patient advocacy groups, and religious groups.

The most revealing look at how print media have portrayed stem cell research was

conducted by Nisbet, Brossard and Kroepsch (2003). This study relied on the mass media









theories of agenda building and frame building (i.e. agenda setting and framing) to study

how the media have influenced the debate over stem cell research. Using quantitative

methodology, the authors found that the stem cell debate relied on "familiar storytelling

themes and dramatic elements that helped push is to the top of the media agenda during

the summer of 2001" (p. 44). Coverage focused mainly on the competing interests

inherent in the debate, namely tradition versus progress:

If on one side of the debate was the image of a mad scientist experimenting on
human embryos, on the other side was a notion of a religious zealot impeding
scientific and social progress (Nisbet et al. 2003, p. 44).

With competing viewpoints clamoring to be heard, the important questions to be asked

are, "Whose voice rises above all others?" and, "How will this affect public opinion and

policymaking?" The frequency with which stakeholders are quoted and which voices

dominate are a key element in framing.

Framing

Framing Overview

Sociologist Erving Goffman is credited with coining the term "framing" (Goffman,

1974). It is important to note that the concept of framing has not always been clear in the

literature. Indeed, Entman's well-known paper refers to framing as a "scattered

conceptualization" (Entman 1993, p. 51). In a more recent publication, Scheufele (1999)

noted that "the term framing has been used repeatedly to label similar but distinctly

different approaches" (p. 103). Hertog and McLeod note that although framing analysis

has been accepted as a useful research tool for several decades, it is far from being an

exact science. A "wide array of theoretical approaches and methods" are utilized and the

field has yet to settle on "a core theory or even a basic set of propositions, nor has a

widely accepted methodological approach emerged" (Hertog and McLeod 2001, p. 139).









Researchers should take care to describe where their methods and approaches fit

within framing's four-cell typology: "media versus audience frames and frames as

independent versus dependent variables" (Scheufele 1999, p. 108). This study is

concerned with media frames as a dependent variable, namely how journalists use frames

and what frames dominate coverage of stem cell research.

It should also be noted that "framing" and "frame theory" are not equitable in the

eyes of many researchers, and that a distinction can be made between the two terms

(Roefs 1998). This study is concerned primarily with the use of framing as a research

tool. Although the exploration of frame theory is valid, this study will not venture into

such territory.

According to Goffman (1974), framing explains how readers use existing mental

frameworks and expectations to make sense of everyday social situations. This "sense-

making" element is critical, as frames can help shape a reader's thoughts about a given

issue. This concept is echoed by Bridges and Nelson (2000), who wrote, "the way an

issue is presented the frame especially through the media, can affect public

perceptions of the issue" (p. 100). Reese (2001) further characterized frames by stating

that they are "organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that

work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world" (p. 140).

Salience is a key element in framing. Entman (1993) is widely respected for his

contributions regarding salience in framing research:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem
definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation for the item described (p. 56).









Frames reduce issues to the familiar, and they can help the public to understand

new and otherwise complex issues by capitalizing on widely accepted dogmas and shared

perspectives. This can be especially useful in coverage of biotechnology issues, where

readers may get bogged down in technical language. By reducing the story to

recognizable elements, journalists can help readers to understand the issue. Hertog and

McLeod (2001) characterized the "importance of frames and framing in social process,

especially in defining and channeling social controversy" (p. 139).

Framing methods can be distilled to such basic elements as the language that

journalists use to describe events (Edelman 1988). Indeed, "the use of baby versus fetus

signals a very different approach to the topic of abortion" (Hertog and McLeod 2001).

We are a culture that relies heavily on language. Yet complex scientific issues pose a

great challenge to the public, who often cannot comprehend the associated terminology.

Framing can help bring the reader onto a common playing field:

All communication is dependent upon shared meaning among communicators. The
speaker and the audience must approach words, icons, ideas, gestures, and so on in
an identical fashion in order to communicate. The greater the difference in their
individual understanding of symbols, the less able they are to communicate (Hertog
and McLeod 2001, p. 141).

However, this quest to establish shared meaning can cause a story to change from a

catchy tune to a broken record. Journalists tend to revert to familiar stories and themes

when framing science stories (Bennett 2001). Nisbet et al. (2003) described this scenario

in greater detail:

When an event or new issue taps familiar themes from previous dramatic stories,
journalists turn to these previously used story lines to recast actors and events in
familiar relationships around the emerging issue (p. 43).

For example, the stem cell debate has been framed in similar ways to the debates over

abortion and in vitro fertilization, since all three have been framed as hinging on the









moral question of when life begins. Framing of the stem cell debate also has echoed the

debate over genetic engineering, where voices have questioned whether scientists are

"playing God" (Charo 2001).

The framing of news stories also is influenced by the journalist's choice of sources.

In fact, source selection can be seen as "one of the most important dimensions of

framing" (Zoch and VanSlyke Turk 1998, p. 762). Shoemaker and Reese further iterate

this point:

Sources have a tremendous effect on mass media content, because journalists can't
include in their news reports what they don't know... (sources) may also influence
the news in subtle ways by providing the context within which all other information
is evaluated.., and by monopolizing the journalists' time so that they don't have an
opportunity to seek out sources with alternative views (Shoemaker and Reese,
1991, p. 150).

Sources

Although journalists strive for neutrality in their work, studies have shown that

journalists tend to favor certain types of sources. In some cases, journalists will forgo

sources whose opinions on an issue contrast with their own (Powers and Fico 1991).

Research has overwhelmingly shown that journalists favor certain "elite" sources,

including police, government officials and scientists.

Journalists often tap elite sources because they are easily identifiable and

accessible, tend to be articulate, can provide a large amount of information with little

effort (on both the source's and journalist's part), and are typically seen by readers as

valid and reliable (Zoch and VanSlyke Turk 1998). In scientific debates, the extent to

which readers trust sources is critical: "reputation is the crucial currency in scientific

debate" (Durant 1993, p. 136). The concept of source validity is also important because if

readers trust a source then they may believe what a source says to be true. In short, what









sources say about an issue can elicit attitude and belief changes among readers (Slater

and Rouner 1996). Specifically, direct quotes can have a strong influence on reader

opinion about an issue. Gibson and Zillman have reported that readers exposed to a given

opinion via a direct quote were likely to echo that opinion and that readers give greater

weight to information contained in direct quotes than in paraphrased quotes (Gibson and

Zillman 1993; Gibson and Zillman 1998). This evidence makes it important to examine

direct quotes within framing studies such as this one.

After considering these facts, it is then not surprising that journalists favor elite

sources, as the practice can provide them with a way to easily inform and potentially

influence readers. Hovland's work from the 1950s supports journalists' inclination to use

elite sources by demonstrating that that the main elements influencing source credibility

among readers trace to the source's trustworthiness and expertise (Hovland and Weiss

1951).

However, journalists' reliance on elite sources, especially those in government,

medicine, and law, can present a top-heavy view of society. This practice can give

"scientists a great deal of control over representations of uncertainty" (Dunwoody 1999,

p. 63). Also, by opting to quote expert sources rather than do their own background

research and investigative reporting, journalists may be depriving readers of key

information on a topic. (Ericson, Baranek, and Chan 1989; Wilkie 1996).

Journalists' use of elite sources can influence the framing and agenda setting of

specific issues (Gans 1979; Nisbet et al. 2003). For example, Andsager and Smiley

(1998) stated that "(t)he news media tend to rely on frames that the most influential

policy actors provide, which will often render large institutions the most influential









policy actors" (p. 183). Journalists' reliance on elite sources can have a strong influence

on policy because "when the resonance process is complete, one frame comes to

dominate debate, and decision makers set public policy to conform to it" (Miller and

Reichert 2001, p. 113).

Research Questions

One primary research question was asked: how have the elite newspapers covered

embryonic stem cell research? According to Creswell (1998), beginning with a single

problem for the researcher to explore is a critical directive of qualitative research. From

there, sub-questions can evolve.

Secondary questions looked at sublevels of this main question: with what frequency

are key stakeholders cited; to what degree are issues regarding embryonic stem cells and

adult stem cells differentiated; how frequently is the process of human cloning cited

alongside stem cell research, and is it differentiated as a separate issue or lumped

together; and how frequently are stem cell policies of other nations mentioned or

compared to U.S. policy?














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Mixed Methods

Two broad approaches to academic research traditionally are recognized -

qualitative and quantitative. The two methodologies differ in many ways, but "the issue

goes deeper than 'to count or not to count"' (Trumbo 2004, p. 418). Quantitative research

operates mainly from the standpoint of taking an existing theory or hypothesis and testing

it. Although quantitative research methods are used in the bulk of published academic

research, qualitative research is no less valuable:

"Qualitative research shares good company with the most rigorous quantitative
research, and it should not be viewed as an easy substitute for a 'statistical' or
quantitative study" (Creswell 1998).

Qualitative research is "a process of making large claims from small matters"

(Carey 1975). Qualitative researchers seek to "preserve and analyze" content, "rather

than subject it to mathematical or other formal transformations" (Lindlof and Taylor

2002, p. 18). In effect, qualitative research takes a macro view, describing the nuances

and fine details of an issue in an attempt to understand fully what is going on. Qualitative

textual analysis seeks to elucidate the meaning behind media messages and can reveal

subtle thematic shifts (Newman 1998). In short, "quantitative researchers work with a

few variables and many cases, whereas qualitative researchers work with a few cases and

many variables" (Creswell 1998).

Qualitative and quantitative methodologies have long existed as two distinct

methodologies, although neither one is recognized as "better" than the other (Newman









1998). Despite their inherent differences, the two approaches can be quite complementary

(Carpenter 1998). In designing studies, researchers should not adopt an "either-or"

mindset. Because each approach offers its own advantages to the researcher, a

combinatorial approach can be quite useful and can be more useful than either approach

would be on its own (Carpenter 1998). Perhaps not surprisingly, a third genre dubbed

"mixed methods" is gaining increased acceptance, and researchers in a variety of social

sciences are touting the benefits of this relatively new approach (Todd et al 2004;

Tashakkorie and Teddlie 2003).

Following this trend and seeking to draw on the advantages of the two traditional

methodologies, this study relied on a mixed-method design. From a quantitative

standpoint, the study sought to understand the frequency with which journalists used key

terms and concepts. In an attempt to paint a more detailed picture, qualitative methods

were employed to explore and further characterize elite print media coverage of

embryonic stem cell research. This component of the study followed Creswell's

guidelines: 1) begin with a research question that seeks to explore what is going on; 2)

focus on a topic that needs to be explored; and 3) present a "detailed view" of the topic

(Creswell 1998).

Methodology

This study examined the way in which issues surrounding stem cell research have

been portrayed in two elite newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The study focused on a critical time span in the history of stem cell research,

encompassing the first major policy decisions for this nascent field.









Newspapers

Newspapers were selected over other media because they are the public's dominant

source for science knowledge (Blum and Knudson 1997). The New York Times and The

Washington Post were examined since they both are clarion trendsetters in the national

media scene (Nelkin 1995). Additionally, they are regarded as key publications for

national policymakers (Gans 1979). The issue of stem cell research is one that has

national and even international importance, so The New York Times was selected for its

reputation, breadth and overall depth of readership. Additionally, The New York Times is

well known for providing ample coverage of science and technology issues via its weekly

"Science Times" section. The Washington Post was selected for its reputation and

prestige, as well as for its attention to political and legislative issues. As the predominant

paper in Washington, D.C., policymakers are apt to read it and to be influenced in how

they respond to current issues.

Time Frame

The coverage time frame was August 25, 2000, through September 19, 2001. The

start date coincided with the Clinton administration's reevaluation of the ban on federal

funding for embryonic stem cell research. The study end date extended one month past

the Bush administration's August 19, 2001, announcement that it would permit federal

funding of embryonic stem cell research conducted on stem cell lines already in

existence. This month-long period following the announcement allowed inclusion of

articles that discussed the controversy over the limited number of existing ES cell lines,

their relative viability and the subsequent determination that adult stem cells might not

hold the promise once believed.









Article Selection

The Lexis-Nexis Academic online database was used to identify articles via a

"guided news search." First, "general news" was selected under the "news category"

drop-down menu. Second, "major papers" was selected under the "news source" drop-

down menu, and The New York Times and The Washington Post were selected via the

"source list" to limit results to those two papers. Third, the database was screened by

entering the term "stem cell" (with quotation marks) in the search term box and selecting

"headline, lead paragraph(s), terms" from the drop-down menu.

News stories, feature stories, and opinions/editorials were all included in this study

because the researcher felt these types of articles would be most likely to include detailed

coverage of stem cell research issues. General letters to the editor were not included.

Also, the researcher excluded the printed text of George W. Bush's televised speech from

August 10, 2001, which ran in both The Washington Post and The New York Times, on

the premise that it was originally a speech and not a written piece. Articles of fewer than

500 words were excluded, because the researcher felt these articles typically are straight

research briefs that lack further explanation or context. The researcher also excluded

pieces that exceeded 500 words but that were merely an assemblage of several short

briefs (e.g. The Washington Post's "Findings," "Today in Congress," and "Washington in

Brief' columns).

The researcher opted to use stories of greater than 500 words because she felt that

these pieces devote adequate space to cover the critical elements of this murky topic and,

thus, ample room to employ frames. These selection criteria echo those used in other

framing studies (Schmid 2004).









Data Collection and Analysis

Individual articles were the unit of analysis. Each was coded using a standard

coding worksheet and set of coding guidelines (Appendices A and B). In addition to

gathering basic identifying information about each article (headline, byline, date, section

and page, etc.), the coding sheet examined a number of other items: (1) utilization of key

terminology; (2) sources of direct quotations; (3) definition and characterization of stem

cell research; (4) presentation of ethical issues surrounding stem cell research; (5)

delineation of differences between adult and embryonic stem cells; (6) references to

human cloning; and (7) references to other nations, namely their stances on stem cell

research or the threat that the United State might be left behind. Data from the coding

sheets was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to streamline analysis.

To answer the primary research question and determine the frames used, the

researcher read through all articles that met the selection criteria. By looking at specific

articles individually, the researcher was then able to employ an inductive approach to

elucidate general trends among the articles. Variables that influenced frame evolution

included terminology, sources, overall tone, and placement of various attributes within

the story. The researcher has both formal educational training and professional

experience in scientific fields. As such, she understands the technical aspects of the stem

cell issue and has followed it in the popular press since its inception.

In order to answer the secondary research questions, the researcher tallied all

related data fields and calculated basic percentages. Comparisons were made between

articles that ran in The New York Times and The Washington Post to elucidate any

additional trends.









Validity and Reliability

Validity typically represents the "truth value" of observations, and whether or not

researchers have presented factual, confirmable and reliable data (Lindlof and Taylor

2002). Validity refers to the congruence between what a given data set measures and

what it intends to measure (Newman 1998). Reliability is a related term and has to do

with the "consistency of observation" and whether the coding sheet, in this case, will

generate the same results each time it is applied to the same article (Lindlof and Taylor

2002, p. 238).

One way to establish reliability and validity in qualitative research is to utilize a co-

coder (Lindlof and Taylor 2002). A second coder was trained and familiarized with the

coding sheet and coded a random sample of 20% of the articles which were selected

using a random number generator. This coder had completed all coursework for a

master's degree in mass communication, having studied both framing theory and

qualitative research. Both coders analyzed the data independently and, following coding,

they compared frames. The coders agreed on the dominant frames and, in the case of

discrepancies, discussed the issue until a conclusion was made. An intercoder reliability

of 86.67% was established using a basic intercoder reliability formula: total stories minus

irreconcilable frames, divided by total stories.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Frames Used

Using the aforementioned criteria, 98 articles were retrieved from The New York

Times and 73 articles were retrieved from The Washington Post. The researcher identified

a number of frames that permeated the elite print media's coverage of stem cell research.

The researcher dubbed these the "battle/debate," "economic," "excess embryos,"

"playing God," "promise," and "uncertainty" frames. Any other frames were coded under

an "other" category. It should be noted that several frames were closely related. For

example, "uncertainty" and "battle/debate" both hinged on the unknown outcomes of the

stem cell research discussion, though the latter frame took a stronger stance using

suggestive terms connoting aggressive moves by shareholder groups to resolve the

uncertainty. However, each story had a tipping point that ultimately pushed it into one

category or another.

Table 1. Primary frames sorted by publication
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles
n=73 (%) n= 98 (%) n=171 (%)
Uncertainty 31 (42.5) 38 (38.8) 69(40.4)
Battle/Debate 22(30.1) 33 (33.7) 55 (32.2)
Promise 7 (9.6) 15 (15.3) 22 (12.9)
Playing God 3(4.1) 2(2.0) 5(2.9)
Economic 3 (4.1) 1(1.0) 4(2.3)
Excess embryos 1(1.4) 1(1.0) 2(1.2)
Other 6 (8.2) 8 (8.2) 14 (8.2)









Table 2. Primary frames sorted by article type
News, n=134 (%) Feature, n=3 (%) Editorial/Opinion, n=34 (%)
Uncertainty 58(43.3) 0(0.0) 11(32.4)
Battle/Debate 42(31.3) 0(0.0) 13(38.2)
Promise 15 (11.2) 0(0.0) 7(20.6)
Playing God 4(3.0) 0(0.0) 1 (2.9)
Economic 4(3.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
Excess embryos2 (1.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)
Other 9 (6.7) 3 (100.0) 2 (5.9)


The "Uncertainty" Frame

The most widely used frame was the "uncertainty" frame, appearing in 42.5% of

The Washington Post articles, 38.8% of The New York Times articles and 40.4% of

overall articles. Webster's dictionary lists such synonyms for uncertainty as doubt,

dubiety, skepticism, and mistrust. Certainly all of these nuances permeated the

newspapers' coverage of stem cell research as the debate over this new technology

surged forward.

The uncertainty frame dominated early coverage within the study's time frame and

centered on the difficulty in sorting out the moral and ethical concerns over stem cell

research. Journalists using this frame cited conservative groups opposed to stem cell

research. Quotations from these groups argued for preserving the sanctity of human life

and protesting the destruction or creation of human embryos for research purposes. In

part, this is because many members of these groups believe that life begins at conception.

Since the derivation of stem cells requires the destruction of an embryo, opponents equate

this with the taking of a human life. However supporters were quoted contesting that:

when it comes to biology, words like "destruction," "creation," "embryo" and even
"life" and "death" are ambiguous. Scientists understand this ambiguity to be a
reflection of the complexity of living things. Meanwhile, both advocates and
opponents of stem cell research are using that ambiguity to their best advantage
(Silver 2001).









Quotes from supporters also countered that frozen embryos are little more than

"microscopic balls of cells." Quotes from supporters acknowledged that the cells

represent potential for human life but with the caveat that many other factors are required

to turn the potential life into reality. Supporters were cited arguing that without

implantation in a mother's womb, the embryos never stand a chance at maturing into a

true human life. Supporters also believe that the true beginnings of life don't come with

fertilization:

Besides, it is not so clear that an individual life begins at fertilization. The
beginnings of the nervous system do not appear until 14 days after fertilization. The
early embryo can split, leading to the birth of twins, so that individuality, it could
be argued, begins some days after fertilization (Wade 2001 la).

Adding to the confusion inherent in the uncertainty frame were journalists'

repeated citations of conservative Republicans crossing party lines. Senators Orrin Hatch

and Strom Thurmond both support embryonic stem cell research. As such, journalists

have pegged them as running counter to their party ideals, acting in opposition to their

well-documented anti-abortion views and thus aligning themselves with liberal groups in

support of stem cell research.

Later coverage featuring the uncertainty frame highlighted concern over Bush's

decision. Frank Bruni, of The New York Times wrote, "his speech was like a Rorschach"

leaving Bush "future wiggle room" (Bruni 2001). Authors expressed repeated skepticism

on whether the 64 existing cell lines would provide enough latitude to maximize the

potential of stem cell research. While the president and his staff argued that the 60-odd

cell lines were "sufficient" to do important science, proponents of stem cell research were

quotes as saying Bush's "vision is shown to be too narrow." Supporters of embryonic

stem cell research felt that by restricting funding to a set number of cell lines, Bush's









policies would inevitably hold back scientists from making progress and that the United

States would lag behind other nations.

On the other side of the fence, conservative groups were also unhappy with Bush's

decision. They felt that Bush had strayed too far from his party's pro-life values, and

called for Bush to reconsider and issue a complete ban on all embryonic stem cell

research.

The "Battle/Debate" Frame

The "battle/debate" frame was the second most prevalent frame, appearing in

30.1% of The Washington Post articles, 33.7% of The New York Times articles and 32.2%

of overall articles Although this frame held certain similarities to the "uncertainty" frame,

the "battle/debate" frame relied on stronger, aggressive-sounding terminology. Initial use

of this frame showed journalists pitting the supporters against the opponents in an all-out

battle to draw support to their side of the cause:

Sensing an opening during Bush's period of indecision, several members of
Congress have written bills, scheduled hearings, demanded White House meetings
and taken to the airwaves to reassert themselves in the battle over cells smaller than
the head of a pin (Connolly 2001b).

Other key phrases that writers used included "spark debate," "eye to eye," "fired back,"

"straddle the line," "legislators feuded," "political parties are maneuvering," "two

agendas collide," "fertile battleground," "skirmishes" and "fight is not over."

Another key element in the "battle/debate" frame was journalists' repeated mention

of how President Bush's "divided administration" was grappling with the "agony,"

"conundrum," and "quandary" of the "national debate." This led some writers to suggest

that Bush's "credibility.. .is open to question." Some writers saw Bush's consideration of

whether to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as a "political litmus









test." During his campaign, Bush vowed to protect the sanctity of human life and

reinforce pro-life values. Therefore, conservatives wondered why Bush was taking so

long to declare what they hoped would be a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research.

This "cat and mouse" game led to skepticism on part of the elite print media and perhaps

the public. Journalists speculated about the delay, suggesting that it was simply "spin, an

effort to justify a decision already made" (Cohen 2001a).

Other journalists expressed that Bush was struggling with how best to appease his

various supporters. Some sources quoted in this frame felt Bush was struggling to

maintain political advantage and avoid political fallout, and therefore opted for a plan that

would offend the least number of people and would help safeguard his political standing

for his future re-election campaign. For example, one source described Bush's decision it

as "a cop-out, but that's his new presidency, going the middle of the road" (Fountain

2001). Another contributor felt Bush "defused a political time bomb that could have

caused deep fissures in the relationships with conservatives and moderates in his own

party" (Berke 2001).

The "Promise" Frame

Journalists also used an alternate frame, the "promise" frame, which emphasized

the promise of stem cell research. Writers using this frame relied heavily on sources from

within the scientific and academic communities. The quotes from scientists and ethicists

expressed that although there are strong moral and ethical considerations, the ends of

stem cell research justify the means. Journalists repeatedly quoted these sources as

believing that legions of ailing Americans one day could benefit from the potential

therapies generated from stem cell research. Writers reiterated this point through the use

of common-ground stories, namely from politicians and such well-known individuals as









Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox. These quotes humanized the issue

by offering personal examples of families touched by devastating diseases.

Journalists using this frame incorporated a number of specific phrases into their

coverage: "promise of miracle cures"; "nascent but promising field"; "fountain of youth";

"magical power"; "limitless potential"; "dazzling array (of new treatments)"; "stem-cell

revolution"; "so versatile"; "potential to cure disease and relieve suffering"; and

"breakthrough therapies and cures." Rather than imply that the tissue necessary for this

research was obtained from a controversial source (i.e. a fetus), writers used such phrases

as: "microscopic ball of cells"; "activated embryo"; and blastocystt."

Articles using the "promise" frame often broached the subject of when life begins

but did not center on the issue. No doubt, the question over when human life truly begins

is laced with uncertainty. Rather than dwell on the uncertainty behind this age-old

question, writers using the "promise" frame touched only briefly on questions about life's

origin. The writers maintained that our inability to answer these questions definitively

should not stand in the way of the research possibilities. One Washington Post article

cited that "the idea that an embryo has a soul is a matter of religious faith, not science,"

and implied that this question should not stand in the way of federal funding (Silver

2001). Writers using this frame maintained that a key distinction exists between the

origin of a human being, an embryological question, and the origin of a human person, a

philosophical question (Irving 1999). Indeed, "no court has ever suggested that they

(embryos) have human rights and it would be unethical to protect them at a sick person's

expense" (Weiss 2001a).









The "Playing God" Frame

Certain elements of uncertainty crept into the "playing God" frame, as well.

However, writers using this frame stepped beyond the basic waffling of whether we

should move forward with embryonic stem cell research, instead arguing that we must be

sure not overstep our ethical boundaries and "play God."

This frame, perhaps not surprisingly, was more prevalent in articles citing

conservative groups and opponents of stem cell research. Groups cited in the articles

included: abortion rights opponents, conservative Republican members of Congress, the

Catholic Church and other religious groups. Articles also cited opponents who argued

that "a tragic coarsening of consciences" makes it "permissible to kill so long as we

intend to bring good from it." These groups were quoted as believing that our stem cell

research policies should reiterate the basic principle of medicine, "to do no harm."

Journalists cited opponents of stem cell research as maintaining that it is morally

and ethically wrong to use human embryonic tissue for research. Writers who employed

the "playing God" described stem cells as "nascent" and "innocent" human life that must

be protected, adding that the sacrifice of these "unborn embryos" and "tiny human

beings" only "devalues and violates human life." For example, Family Research Council

president Kenneth Connor wrote that "no commercial gain or scientific benefit can justify

the slaughter of the innocent" (Connor 2001).

A few articles using this frame (mainly editorials) incorporated an element of fear

through the use of specific terminology. For example, one Washington Post editorial

referenced the human experimentation conducted at Auschwitz and then suggested that

stem cell research could lead to scientists "playing God," using cloning "to provide spare

human parts." Another article using this frame warned of "fetal farming," suggesting that









the overwhelming demand for embryos would result in for-profit businesses to breed new

embryos for research.

The "Excess Embryos" Frame

The "excess embryos" frame was in many ways complementary to the "promise"

frame. Journalists centered the "excess embryos" frame on the overproduction of

embryos for infertility treatments. They cited fertility experts who express that many

embryos generated for IVF are defective and can never be viable for reproductive

purposes. Authors also noted that couples undergoing IVF typically end up with more

embryos than are needed. This frame emphasizes that stem cell research would be able to

utilize these embryos, saving them from certain destruction and unnecessary waste. This

frame's terminology centered on embryos, describing them in a number of ways:

"excess," "surplus," "spare," "leftover," "not needed," "in excess of clinical need," or

"would otherwise be thrown away. "

The "Economic" Frame

The "economic" frame played up the potential financial payoffs that will result

from advances in stem cell research. Key terminology used in this frame included "slew

of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists ready to swing [the door] wide open,"

"commercial potential," "long-term growth," "economically attractive," "business

issues," and "investors."

Sources Quoted

An important attribute in determining frames is the sources that are quoted within

articles. The researcher wanted to know with what frequency the elite newspapers quoted

key players in the stem cell research debate and relied on Nisbet et al 2003 to characterize

source allegiance.









Table 3. Sources directly quoted within articles
The Washington
Post, n=73 (%)
Scientists, administrators, and 49 (19.3)
science policy analysts
Pro-ES cell research groups 40 (15.7)
Bush administration 36 (14.2)
Religious groups 23 (9.1)
Ethicists 20 (7.9)
Republican pro-ES cell 19 (7.5)
research
Anti-ES cell research groups 16 (6.3)
Republican anti-ES cell 18 (7.1)
research
Democratic pro-ES cell 18 (7.1)
research
Celebrities 0 (0.0)
Democratic anti-ES cell 1 (0.4)
research
Other 14 (5.5)
Total sources 254


The New York
Times, n=98 (%)
83 (84.7)

79 (80.6)
53 (54.1)
38 (38.8)
39 (39.8)
36 (36.7)

30 (30.6)
17 (17.3)

16(16.3)

3 (3.1)
0 (0.0)

25 (25.5)
419


Total articles,
n=171 (%)
132(19.6)

119(17.7)
89(13.2)
61(9.1)
59 (8.8)
55 (8.2)

46 (6.8)
35(5.2)

34(5.0)

3(0.4)
1 (0.1)

39(5.8)
653


Scientists, Administrators and Science Policy Analysts

The most oft-cited source group was that of scientists, administrators and science

policy analysts, making up 19.3% of independent sources quoted in The Washington

Post, 84.7% in The New York Times, and 19.6% of the total sources quoted in both

papers. Group members included stem cell research scientists like James Thomson. The

group also included administrators and science policy analysts affiliated with universities,

hospitals, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Association for

the Advancement of Science, the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy

of Sciences. Scientists were included regardless of whether they held a medical degree or

a doctorate of philosophy, and whether they worked in academia or for the National

Institutes of Health. Scientists working in any commercial ventures were lumped into the

"Pro-ES stem cell research groups," as they stood to benefit financially from any









advancement in stem cell technology. Most of the time, these scientists were academic

researchers who had spun off a for-profit company that they themselves headed.

Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups

Pro-embryonic stem cell groups were the second most-cited groups, comprising

15.7% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 80.6% in The New York

Times, and 17.7% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Sources in this category

included any groups who stand to profit, either financially or through potential medical

cures, from advances in embryonic stem cell research. Groups included the Coalition to

Advance Medical Research, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Wisconsin Alumni

Research Foundation (including managing director Carl Gulbrandsen), Juvenile Diabetes

Research Foundation, Parkinson's Foundation, biotechnology companies (like Geron) or

their officers, and financial analysts who favor embryonic stem cell research.

Bush Administration

The next source group was the Bush administration, which accounted for 14.2% of

independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 54.1% in The New York Times, and

13.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This group included George W. Bush

himself; advisors, aides or spokespeople for George W. Bush; cabinet members like

Tommy Thompson, director of the agency of Health and Human Services; and Karl

Rove, top political adviser.

Religious Groups

Religious groups were the next category, making up 9.1% of independent sources

quoted in The Washington Post, 38.8% in The New York Times, and 9.1% of the total

sources quoted in both papers. Members of this group included the Catholic Church,









Pope John Paul II, the Vatican, National Council of Catholic Bishops (including Richard

Doerflinger), and conservative Protestant groups.

Ethicists

The next most-frequent category was ethicists. This group made up 7.9 % of

independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 39.8% in The New York Times, and

8.8% of the total sources quoted in both papers and included R. Alta Charo, Leon Kass,

and James Childress. The category also included any other ethicists, including those

identified as sitting on advisory boards for biotechnology companies (as opposed to

including them in the pro-embryonic stem cell groups category with other biotechnology

interests.)

Republican Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Sources from the Republican pro-embryonic stem cell research category comprised

7.5% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 36.7% in The New York

Times, and 5.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This category included Arlen

Specter, Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Bill Frist, Connie Mack, John McCain, Jim

Ramstad, Nancy Johnson, and Susan Collins, as well as any state-level GOP supporters

opposed to ES cell research.

Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Groups

Another source category was called anti-embryonic stem cell groups, which

accounted for 6.3% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 30.6% in The

New York Times, and 6.8% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Group members

included the National Right to Life League, American Life League, and Family Research

Council organizations, as well as their officers and representatives.









Republican Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Republican anti-embryonic stem cell research source category accounted for

7.1% of independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 17.3% in The New York

Times, and 5.2% of the total sources quoted in both papers. Sources included

Congressional members Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts, Sam

Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon, and Tom Delay. The category also included any

state-level congressional members who were mentioned in coverage.

Democratic Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Democratic pro-embryonic stem cell research sources made up 7.1% of

independent sources quoted in The Washington Post, 16.3% in The New York Times, and

5.0% of the total sources quoted in both papers. This group included Tom Daschle, Tom

Harkin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nita Lowey, Richard Gephardt, Henry Waxman,

Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Jim McDermott, as well as any state-level Democratic

supporters.

Celebrities

Another category was celebrities, although members of this group made up only

3.1% of sources within New York Times articles and 0.4% of the total sources quoted in

both papers. "Celebrities" were not quoted in any Washington Post articles. Well-known

public figures who support ES cell research including Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and

Christopher Reeve are included in this group.

Democratic Anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Nisbet et al (2003) also named a Democratic anti-embryonic stem cell research

group, which they listed as including Ronnie Shows, Nick Rahall, Bart Stupak, Jim

Barcia, Dale Kildee, Christopher John, Solomon Ortiz, Mike McIntyre, David Phelps,









and Ike Skelton. However, only one Democratic opponent appeared among all articles

examined, within a single Washington Post article (0.4% of quotes within Washington

Post articles and 0.1% of quotes within all articles).

Other Sources

Several sources could not be classified into the above categories and were tallied in

an "other" category. These sources included political advisers whose stance on ES-cell

research was not articulated, any members of the Clinton administration, and literary or

historical figures like Aldous Huxley and Thomas Jefferson (the latter were mainly

quoted in editorials). These "other" sources totaled 5.5% of independent sources quoted

in The Washington Post, 25.5% in The New York Times, and 5.8% of the overall sources

in both papers.

Definition and Characterization of Stem Cell Research

The researcher also was interested in how stem cell research was defined and

explained, including how the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research were

characterized. The researcher believes that if people are to understand the central issues

of the debate, then they must have at least a basic appreciation for the technology and

terminology.

Specifically, the researcher looked first at whether each article attempted to define

stem cell research in any way. For example, some articles gave a basic explanation like

"stem cells are the basic building blocks of the body" with no further explanation

anywhere in the article. Other articles gave a more technical, in-depth descriptions that

included details on the sources of stem cells, how they are isolated and grown, and their

potential usefulness. For example:









hematopoietic stem cells are the source in the bone marrow from which a constant
stream of red and white blood cells is produced throughout a person's life. Like
embryonic stem cells, they can renew themselves indefinitely, but their potential is
restricted to making just the cells of the blood system (Wade 2001a).

Just over half (50.7%) of the articles in The Washington Post gave a basic

definition of stem cell research, 11% percent gave an in-depth definition, and 38.0%

offered no definition at all. In The New York Times, 37.8% of the articles gave a basic

definition, 22.4% percent gave an in-depth definition, and 40.0% offered no definition at

all.

Table 4. Definition and characterization of stem cell research
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles,
n=73 (%) n=98 (%) n=171 (%)
Basic 37 (50.7) 37 (37.8) 74 (43.2)
In-depth 8(11.0) 22 (22.4) 30 (17.5)
None 28 (38.0) 39 (40.0) 67 (39.2)


On a secondary level, the researcher looked at whether the articles highlighted any

of the ethical/moral implications of stem cell research. More specifically, the researcher

looked at whether the article touched on two key points: (1) that embryos must be

"destroyed," "sacrificed," or "killed" in order to extract embryonic stem cells; and (2)

that in vitro fertility treatments are result in "discarded," "excess," or "spare" embryos

that are "not needed," "in excess of clinical need," or "would otherwise be thrown away."

A majority of articles in both papers highlighted the ethical implications, with The

Washington Post ringing in at 68.5% and The New York Times at 66.3%. Specifically,

71.2% of Washington Post articles and 67.3% of New York Times articles mentioned

embryo destruction, while 60.2% of Washington Post articles and 55.1% of New York

Times articles referred to surplus IVF embryos.









Table 5. Ethical/moral implications
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles,
n=73 (%) n=98 (%) n=171 (%)
Overall implications 50(68.49) 65(66.3) 115 (67.3)
Embryo destruction 52(71.2) 66(67.3) 118 (69.0)
IVF surplus embryos 44 (60.2) 54 (55.1) 99 (57.9)


Finally, on a tertiary level, the researcher looked at whether articles made specific

reference to "adult" or "embryonic" stem cells (as opposed to simply using the generic

term "stem cells") and whether articles made a direct comparison of these two main cell

types, detailing their respective uses, strengths and weaknesses. Secretary of Health and

Human Services Tommy Thompson was quoted in one Washington Post article about this

issue: "There has never been the research done comparing adult [umbilical] cord blood

and embryonic stem cells to determine what are the qualities, what are the abilities of

these stem cells" (Weiss 2001c). Other articles made explicit comparisons: "While

considered inferior by many scientists, adults [sic] cells may turn out to be as useful as

those obtained from embryos without posing the problem of having to destroy embryos to

get them, [ethicists] argued" (Connolly 2001a).

The most detailed delineation between adult and embryonic stem cells came from a

New York Times reporter who crafted a 3,555-word piece titled "Teaching the body to

heal itself; Work on cells' signals fosters talk of a new medicine."

Embryonic stem cells are created in the very early embryo; from them, all the
bodies' tissues and organs are generated. Once the body is formed, the embryonic
stem cells disappear, leaving behind a few descendants to keep the body in good
repair through its lifetime. These descendants, often called adult stem cells,
apparently lack the embryonic stem cell's power of generating any and all of the
body's tissues. Nor can they renew themselves indefinitely, as can embryonic stem
cells grown in glassware (Wade 2000).









In all, 35.6% of Washington Post articles mentioned used the term "adult stem

cells," 72.6% used the term "embryonic stem cells," and 28.8% made a direct comparison

between the two. The numbers were similar among New York Times articles with 34.7%

using the term "adult stem cells," 81.6% using the term "embryonic stem cells," and

24.5% comparing the two.

Table 6. Adult versus embryonic stem cell research
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles,
n=73 (%) n=98 (%) n=171 (%)
Adult stem cells 26(35.6) 34(34.7) 60(35.1)
Embryonic stem 53 (72.6) 80 (81.6) 133 (77.8)
cells
Adult vs. 21(28.8) 24 (24.5) 45 (26.3)
embryonic stem
cells


Cloning

The researcher wanted to know how frequently "cloning" was cited. The researcher

felt it was important to examine whether articles this issue since the use of the term

"cloning" can cause confusion among some readers, who may not realize the differences

inherent between "reproductive cloning" and "therapeutic cloning." Just under a quarter

of the articles mentioned cloning (21.9% of Washington Post articles, 24.5% of New York

Times articles, and 23.4% of all articles).

Table 7. References to human cloning
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles,
n=73 (%) n=98 (%) n=171 (%)
16 (21.9) 24 (21.9) 40 (23.4)


Some articles cited specific concern over "reproductive cloning," i.e. creating exact

replicas of existing humans, noting that the majority of scientists oppose such technology.

Other articles featured concerns, but in a more general sense. For example, one New York









Times editorial opposed "cloning" because it "threatens to destroy what is genuinely

unique about each human being" (Wolfe 2001). Some reporters also quoted Bush as

being opposed to "cloning" in its generic sense, while others clarified that this meant

Bush opposed "human cloning for any purpose, including research, and he urged

researchers to explore the potential of stem cells derived from adults" (Wolfe 2001;

Goldstein 2001).

Additional articles took great care to explain the differences between

"reproductive" and "therapeutic" cloning. For example, therapeutic cloning is when "an

embryo would be created from a patient's cells to make life-saving tissue" (McNeil

2001). Some went into even further detail on therapeutic cloning:

The purpose of such cloning is not to create a baby but to use a patient's own cells
to create embryos from which stem cells can be obtained. Such cells would grow
into tissue matching that of the patient, so the patient's immune system would not
reject transplants (Pollack 2001).

United States versus Other Nations

Finally, the researcher wanted to know how frequently articles mentioned stances taken

by other nations or alluded to the threat of the United States being left behind. The

researcher felt it was important to look for discussion of a possible "brain drain," because

such an event could mean that the United States would fall behind other nations and lose

its hard-earned reputation as a scientific bellwether. In total, 8.2% of Washington Post

articles, 11.2% of New York Times articles and 9.9% of all articles from both papers

touched on this point. The majority of articles that gave at least a cursory description of

international stem cell policies did so at or near the end of articles.









Table 8. References to other nations
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Total articles,
n=73 (%) n=98 (%) n=171 (%)
6 (8.2) 11 (11.2) 17 (9.9)


Certain articles merely noted what was going on in other nations, allowing readers

to draw their own conclusions as to what this might mean for the United States:

Among nations, only Britain has set up a legal mechanism that allows the creation
of new embryos for research, with strict rules governing the kinds of experiments
that are eligible. To date, none have been used to create stem cells (Weiss 2001b).

Other articles commented that "Sweden's political climate is benign" for stem cell

research and that India has "no religious, cultural, political or social barriers to this

research."

Some editorials lauded stances taken by other nations. For example, Jim Clark,

founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Healtheon (now WebMD) and myCFO, penned a

New York Times editorial presenting his reasons for withholding the remaining $60

million of his outstanding $150 million pledge to Stanford University to create a center

for biomedical engineering and science at Stanford. He noted that the United Kingdom

has chosen to regulate nonreproductive cloning, a move which he deemed "more

rational" than the United States' policy to ban it outright (Clark 2001).

Still other articles cited that the United States' policy may put it at a disadvantage.

For example, one of America's top stem cell researchers, Roger Pedersen, was fleeing to

England in order to escape an "unfriendly climate" in the United States and to "maximize

[his] potential." One news article's lead reiterated this point:

An unexpected new order of powers has emerged, at least in the field of human
embryonic stem cell research. The roster, say scientists who back the research, is
evidence of the inventiveness of the newcomers but also shows how much the usual









powerhouses of biomedical research in the United States and Europe have been
held back by political and ethical debate (Wade 2001b).

However, this article also includes the caveat that some nations aren't maximizing

their potential either. For example, "British biologists developed the technique for

growing embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos, the underpinning of the methods

that other have used with human cells," but they have yet to derive human embryonic

stem cells.

One Washington Post article offered the most in-depth look at the international

ramifications. The headline proclaimed "India plans to fill void in stem cell research;

Scientists say restrictions in U.S. may give them advantage in development" (Lakshmi

2001). The author elaborated, stating that India had not established policies governing

stem cell research, which left the door wide open for interested researchers. The author

quoted one source saying that Bush's announcement of the limited U.S. policy "opened

'a new pot of gold' for India science and business." The author cited that public debate in

India had been minimal, in part because "most Indians are not aware of the research or its

controversial nature" but also because of the nation's differing values; "Our society is

liberal in areas of scientific work. We will not face any opposition," said one Indian

biologist.

The author closed the article with the caveat that although India allows scientists

greater latitude, the nation is not likely to surpass other leading scientific nations; "The

work here is still in its infancy" and "futuristic experiments.., are a low priority in a

country in which millions of people have no access to basic health care," the author

wrote. The author of a Washington Post editorial also reassured that despite the positions






56


of other nations, the United States does not risk being left behind: "If the United States

doesn't lead, the rest of the world is not going to do much either" (Cohen 2001b).














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

It will come as no surprise to anyone who reads the newspaper on a regular basis

that the issue of stem cell research has been and continues to be a pivotal and hotly

contested topic. The technology's touted promise means that it could shift the way we

treat disease, moving us into an era of "regenerative medicine." Of course, we also know

that not everyone endorses this new technology. The way in which the elite media have

covered the debate can give us an interesting glimpse into the evolution of this pressing

public policy issue.

Frame Analysis

Frame use shifted over time. In many earlier articles, journalists utilized the

"promise" frame, likely as a direct result of the newly available federal funds for stem

cell research. Journalists then shifted to using the "battle/debate" and "uncertainty" as a

conservative, pro-life Republican president prepared to take office. Journalists

highlighted Bush's extended debate over whether or not to allow federal funding, which

equated to prolonged reliance of the "battle/debate" and "uncertainty" frames. It was at

this point that coverage began to use the "playing God" frame, as opponents of ES cell

research voiced their opposition of ES cell research funding. Newspaper coverage

following Bush's decision was also dominated by the "uncertainty" frame. In numerous

articles, writers debated whether Bush's allowances would be enough. Concerns were

mentioned about whether adult stem cells held the same promise as ES cells. Others









writers questioned if the 64 existing cell lines eligible for federal funding would prove

viable and readily available to scientists.

Use of "Uncertainty" and "Battle/Debate"

As described in the results section, authors favored "uncertainty" as a primary

frame, evidenced by the fact that this frame appeared most frequently (40.4% of all

articles.) Journalists relied most heavily on the "uncertainty" frame in hard news

coverage (43.3% of all news stories), indicating that stem cell research can be seen as an

emergent science. Susanna Hornig Priest described emergent science as "science whose

truth has not yet been settled by consensus, either scientific or public" (Priest 1999, p.

97). She stated that emergent science is almost always dubbed newsworthy. The repeated

appearance of stem cell research on the front pages certainly confirms this.

As was mentioned in the results section, the "uncertainty" frame evolved over time.

In later coverage, journalists included quotes from pro-ES cell groups that questioned

whether Bush's policy would allow scientists enough leeway. The quotes expressed

doubt over whether the 60-odd cell lines that Bush approved would provide scientists

enough latitude. Perhaps journalists opted for those quotes because they were hearing

many voices argue that "sufficient" is not the same as "excellent." After all, is

"sufficient" performance enough to truly succeed in a cutting-edge field? In this country,

we strive for superlative, not average, performance, both in our independent lives and at a

national level. The latter is especially true when it comes to science and technology. A

glance back at the "space race" reminds us of this.

The "uncertainty" frame related closely to the "battle/debate" frame, which was the

second most prevalent frame and accounted for 32.2% of all articles. As is the case in

many battles, it was unclear which side might emerge victorious in the stem cell debate.









Ultimately, journalists portrayed Bush as choosing a middle ground where the warring

parties could meet. It could be said that Bush's compassionate conservatism had morphed

into a new breed, that of calculated conservatism. Coverage reflected that Bush's

announcement to supply federal funds for limited embryonic stem cell research quelled

the debate temporarily as both sides sought to understand what Bush's policy would

mean for their cause. However in the long run, coverage focused on the fact that Bush's

policy only intensified the uncertainty and renewed the battle. Journalists featured

stakeholders on both sides who continued to push for revised policies and thus prolonged

the debate.

It is perhaps not surprising that journalists writing about stem cell research tended

to rely most heavily on frames of "uncertainty" and "battle/debate." Indeed, studies show

that the rate of scientific uncertainty in the media is increasing (Friedman, Dunwoody,

and Rogers 1999). Friedman has argued that experts on each side of an issue introduce

elements of uncertainty in an effort to sway public opinion. However rather than skirt

murky issues, the Association for Health Care Journalists' code of ethics urges science

writers to "clearly define and communicate areas of doubt and uncertainty." This seems

the best tact when covering stem cell research, since the subtle nuances must be

understood fully before one can form a truly educated opinion on the issue.

It is likely that the writers of the various articles wanted to show readers that two

distinct sides of the issue existed. So often, we hear that media writers are taught to write

"fair and balanced" coverage. By citing ideologies on both sides of the stem cell debate,

writers fulfilled this media ideal, at least to a certain extent. While it is important that the

media provide balanced, accurate and complete information on a subject, declaring









support or opposition for complex issues can help clarify ongoing debate and bring

potential resolution. Hertog and McLeod (2001) refer to this as the resolution phase.

However, it should be noted that although articles featured both sides of the debate,

coverage was by no means equal; certain themes and voices appeared repeatedly. For

example, one voice that seemed to appear more frequently than all other conservative

sources was that of Richard Doerflinger. Like other religious leaders, he clamored that

we should not move forward with this technology since we cannot be certain we are not

destroying nascent human lives. This is not the first time this tact has been used in public

debate. Many of the central arguments that conservatives were quoted using in this debate

hearken to those used to protest abortion. Hertog and McLeod (2001) suggest that frames

are often recycled from one media topic to another. Indeed, "controversies over science

and technology persist, and the same issues keep reoccurring in changing forms" (Nelkin

1995).

On a basic level, journalistic coverage suggests that many conservatives view stem

cell research as a "pro-life" issue. However, certain otherwise "pro-life" conservatives

have come out in support of embryonic stem cell research and have been featured

prominently in the media. In fact, journalists quoted these sources as saying that

supporting embryonic stem cell research is indeed in-line with "pro-life" fundamentals,

as the technology could ultimately result in disease therapies benefiting millions of

Americans. The idea that one could sit on either side of the fence on the stem cell issue

and still be "pro-life" is perhaps not as surprising as it may sound. In fact, it can be a

useful tool in public debate: "social groups may exhibit different ideologies and yet apply

the same frame to a particular topic (Hertog and McLeod 2001, p. 144).









Overwhelmingly, though, the elite media's coverage of stem cell research tended to be

positive. Staff writers took care to highlight both sides of the debate, although they

tended to feature sources in favor of embryonic stem cell research more frequently than

those who opposed it. Journalists might touch on the controversies over stem cell

research, but the language they used tended to play up the promise more than the

potential pitfalls. It is difficult to say whether this pattern can be seen as "good" or "bad."

In some ways, journalists' proclivity to play up the positive could be seen as critical to

advancing public discussion of the issue and resulting policy.

Use of Other Frames

Authors used a number of other frames, including the "playing God" and "promise"

frames, both of which included quotations from polar sources. In "playing God" stories,

writers favored conservative sources such as the Catholic Church and abortion rights

opponents while in "promise" stories, writers quoted more liberal sources such as

academics and patient advocacy groups. As was mentioned in the results section,

journalists using the "promise" frame often relied on personal testimonials, which may

help build rapport with readers since just about everyone has a family member or friend

who might benefit from the potential therapies expected to emerge from in stem cell

research. Writers using the "promise" frame tended to discuss the arguments behind

when life begins, whereas those using the "playing God" frame often skirted the issue

and simply maintained that all life, no matter how microscopic, was sacred. It is possible

that writers using the "promise" frame were attempting to downplay the moral elements

of the technology by dealing head on with the issue of when life truly begins: if the

controversy could be abated then perhaps support for the issue would intensify.









Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholders in support of embryonic stem cell research were quoted by

journalists with greater frequency than stakeholders who oppose embryonic stem cell

research (82 anti-ES sources vs. 208 pro-ES sources among 171 total articles). This may,

in part, be due to the fact that public opinion research polls showed that a majority of

Americans actually supported stem cell research. The media articles may simply have

been reflecting the dominant opinion on the topic.

Scientists and science policy analysts made up a large chunk of all sources quoted

by writers (132 science sources among 171 total articles). This is perhaps not surprising.

Firstly, stem cell research is an "emergent science," as described by Priest. This means

that a majority of the American public does not understand the subtle nuances of the

technology or terminology. Thus, it behooves reporters to rely on scientific sources to

help fill in the blanks and explain the burgeoning new field to novice readers. Secondly,

the literature shows that journalists tend to favor "elite" sources like scientists when

crafting stories.

Journalists relied on certain other stakeholders repeatedly throughout coverage. For
example, Richard Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was
quoted a number of times, perhaps because his group has been very vocal in its
opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the Catholic Church was cited
more frequently than any other religious group in its opposition to embryonic stem
cell research. Also cited frequently were Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch and Strom
Thurmond. These otherwise-conservative Republicans were lobbying in support of
embryonic stem cell research, an apparent affront to party lines. This multi-layered
controversy made them attractive sources for journalists.
Embryonic Stem Cells vs. Adult Stem Cells

Oftentimes, journalists used the generic term "stem cell research" in news articles,

which can be seen as exceedingly problematic. This umbrella term does not give the

reader critical contextual information about the source of the stem cells. Stakeholders on









both sides of the stem cell issue have been frustrated by the media's use of this all-

inclusive term. Many conservative groups, for example, support adult stem cell research

but oppose embryonic stem cell research. Does this mean they are for "stem cell"

research or against it? It all depends on what kind of stem cell research one is talking

about. Meanwhile, pro-research groups often believe that one must be pro-ES cell

research in order to be considered in favor of "stem cell" research.

No apparent difference existed between how each newspaper delineated adult

stem cell research from embryonic stem cell research. It is somewhat surprising that the

delineation rate was so low. As described in the background section, large differences

exist between embryonic and adult stem cells, namely in source and potential for

research. This lack of delineation could lead to greater confusion of the issues among

readers.

Cloning and Stem Cell Research

The Washington Post referenced human cloning in 21.9% of its articles (16 of 73

articles) while The New York Times referenced it in 24.5% of its articles (24 of 98

articles). In most articles that cited human cloning, journalists made a brief attempt to

differentiate it from stem cell research. However, this could have been done in a much

more exacting manner in a greater number of articles. By specifying that stem cell

research and human cloning are entirely separate, journalists could have staved off some

of the controversy over stem cell research funding. For example, many supporters of stem

cell research argue that the process of creating stem cells (sometimes known as

therapeutic cloning) is not the same thing as creating human beings (also known as

reproductive cloning). However, if no clear distinction between these technologies is









made, readers may assume that all stem cell research means that scientists are acting out

science-fiction fantasies and reproducing human beings.

United States-Global Leader or Lagging Behind?

Writers for The Washington Post referenced other nations in 8.2% of articles (6 of

73 articles) while New York Times writers referenced them in 11.22% of articles (11 of 98

articles). Overall, it did not seem that writers from either paper were overly concerned

with how the efforts in the United States might stack up to those of other countries. This

is somewhat disturbing, for a number of reasons:

"Other countries around the world will pay a great deal of attention to what the
United States does in its domestic law. If an international consensus on the
regulation of certain biotechnologies is ever to take shape, it is unlikely to come
about in the absence of American action at the domestic level" (Fukuyama 2002,
p.11).

So by not acting decisively, the United States may slow scientific progress across

the globe. Of course, other outcomes are possible. For many years, the United States has

prided itself on being at the cutting edge of scientific research. Some supporters of stem

cell research fear that if our policies lag behind those of other nations then the United

States will simple get left behind as other nations forge ahead.

Along these lines, some scientists and analysts fear that a conservative stem cell

research policy could lead to a "brain drain," where talented stem cell researchers would

leave the United States for foreign shores where they could conduct their researcher

unfettered by restrictive policies.

Conclusions

Although this study may appear dated to some readers (the dataset stretches back

nearly five years), it is anything but old news. At the time this analysis was completed

(Summer 2005), stem cell research continued to be a dominant topic in the current news.









The initial debates over stem cell research and Bush's policy were truncated by the events

of September 11th. Rightfully so, the nation found it had more important issues to

consider than federal policies governing the funding of embryonic stem cell research.

However given time, the media agenda has evolved to again include stem cell research as

a prominent feature.

Overall, the topic of stem cell research framing in the elite newspapers carries great

importance. As mentioned earlier, stem cell research has the potential to transform the

medical field entirely. Despite the previously discussed ethical risks surrounding the

advance of stem cell research, it is equally important to consider what will occur if we do

no move forward in this area. This idea has been echoed by Chris MacDonald, an ethicist

at Dalhousie University, who said, "In the field of biotechnology, nothing short of

inaction can guarantee that we won't make decisions that end up seeming, in retrospect,

to have been mistakes" (MacDonald 2001). Overbearing policy will greatly hinder

scientific progress, preventing therapies and cures for a vast array of medical conditions

and diseases from ever being realized. In the meantime, scientists in other countries will

be hard at work making these specific discoveries.

In her 2002 study of stem cell policies in the U.S., United Kingdom, France and

Canada, Zimmerman found this:

"The United States is in the curious position of having been in the forefront of
human embryonic stem cell research, yet now having the most restrictive
regulatory regime of the four countries surveyed" (Zimmerman 2002, p. 78).

At first blush, this seems benign. The discoveries can always be applied within the

U.S. However, it likely would take longer for potential therapies to be implemented;

therapies developed outside the U.S. often trigger greater skepticism and a longer review









process by the FDA. In all, it is important to study the specific framing of this issue as it

has the power to influence the subsequent public policy decisions made in this country.

The bottom line is that the uncertainty surrounding stem cell research has made it

challenging to establish lasting policies. The trouble is that science progresses at a rate far

faster than the policies that should guide it. In the words of Bertrand Russell, "The central

problem of our age is how to act decisively in the absence of certainty." Perhaps the

media, by conveying the central elements of the debate, can help to resolve this

promising but controversial issue.

Limitations and Future Research

This study attempted a comprehensive look at how elite papers have framed stem

cell research. However, the study was not without its limitations. While the study looked

in-depth at what key terms were used and what sources were quotes, it did not consider

the placement of these various attributes within the story. For example, journalism

schools teach journalists to follow the inverted pyramid format, placing the most critical

elements of a story near the top and the less important elements later on. Thus, a source

quoted in the first three paragraphs would carry more weight than a quote buried at the

end. In relation to sources, the study looked only at sources given direct quotes within

articles. A complete picture would include an examination of paraphrased quotes, as well

as shareholder groups that were mentioned but not quoted. Therefore, future studies

might seek to identify which sources were paraphrased versus directly quoted, as well as

the placement of key attributes within individual stories.

Another limitation revolved around the examination of "cloning" in coverage. If a

story mentioned cloning in any way, the researcher noted this. However, the researcher

did not delineate between quotes from conservatives afraid of potential "baby factories"









and supporters who lobbied for therapeutic cloning. Future studies would do better to

establish clearer measurement tools for this question.

Another limitation of this study was that it merely took a snapshot of existing

coverage and lacked the ability to confirm any possible effects of this coverage. A reader-

effects study would be useful here. Subjects could be asked to read various articles

featuring stem cell research, completing pre- and post-test analyses that would gauge

their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on selected stem-cell issues.

The details of this study aside, the topic no doubt lends itself to further exploration.

Examining articles of 100 to 500 words could be insightful since many Americans tend to

get their news from shorter stories. However, these same stories would offer less space

for detailing this complex issue. It would be interesting to see if authors were able to

distill critical elements into a succinct synopsis. It also might be useful to study the

framing of elite newspapers in other regions of the U.S. (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.),

rather than just the East Coast. Because the papers examined in this study tended to frame

the topic in a more progressive and liberal manner, a study of newspapers in more

traditionally conservative climates like the Midwest and the South could yield different

results. And finally, in countries such as England and Sweden, the governments already

have tackled the thorny issues surrounding stem cell research and have introduced

regulatory measures and legislation. An alternate perspective could be achieved by

studying elite newspapers in other countries.















APPENDIX A
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET

1. Newspaper:
2. Date:
3. Day:
4. Headline:
5. Author's name and affiliation:
Staff Guest/Freelance Wire Syndicate
6. Part of series? (0) No (1) Yes
7. Word count:
8. Section and page:
9. Geographic level: Local State National Int'l.
10. Type of item: News Feature Opinion Other
11. Graphic elementss? List caption and/or description:
12. Lead
13. Main topic of story:
14. Secondary topic(s):
15. Key terms) used in the article:
16. Sources used in story for direct quotation(s):



0= "
CA CA __

17. Does the article define stem cell research at all?: (0) No (1) Yes
18. If yes was selected in the previous question, was the research defined (1) on a basic
level; or (2) on a more detailed level?
19. Does the article outline potential implications (e.g. moral or ethical)?: (0) No (1) Yes
20. Does the article mention the destruction of embryos in any way?: (0) No (1) Yes









21. Does the article mention discarded or excess embryos from in vitro fertility
treatments?: (0) No (1) Yes
22. Does the article refer to the potential of stem cell research to yield treatment for
specific diseasess? (0) No (1) Yes
If yes, list which ones:
23. Does the article use the term "human cloning" or allude to this procedure? (0) No
(1) Yes
24. Does the article use the term "adult stem cells" or "stem cells derived from adult
cells"? (0) No (1) Yes
25. Does the article use the term "embryonic stem cells" or "stem cells derived from
human embryos"? (0) No (1) Yes
26. Does the article delineate between embryonic and adult stem cells research? (0) No
(1) Yes
27. Does the article mention stances taken by other nations and/or mention the threat that
the U.S. may be left behind? (0) No (1) Yes


Frame analysis
Primary frame:
Secondary frame(s):














APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE CODING SHEET

1. Record the name of the newspaper. You may use the abbreviations NYT for The
New York Times and WP for The Washington Post.

2. List the date of the article in standard format: MM/DD/YYYY.

3. List the day of the week on which the article ran using the following abbreviations:
Sunday (U); Monday (M); Tuesday (T); Wednesday (W); Thursday (R); Friday (F);
and Saturday (A).

4. List the headline, exactly as it appears. Be sure to include any unique capitalization
or punctuation.

5. List the author's name, as listed in the byline. Identify the author's affiliation (staff,
guest/freelance, wire, or syndicate). If no affiliation is listed, assume that the writer
is a staff writer.

6. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes to indicate whether this article was part of a series. If yes,
then indicate which part of the series and then list the series editor's name.

7. List the word count, if available.

8. List the section and page number where the article ran. List the section letter (i.e.
A, B, C, etc.) and/or the section name (Financial, World, etc.), depending on what
is available. Examples: A-1; Financial-1.

9. Circle whether this was a local, state, national or international piece. The scope
should be determined by looking at the main focus of the piece, as well as the
sources quoted within the piece. A local piece will include sources primarily from
the local area (mayor, citizens, etc.) and will emphasize the effect of the story at the
city or county level. A state piece may include quotes from the governor, members
of the state house or senate, or other state-level officials. Both national and
international pieces will likely include quotes from the president and/or his cabinet,
as well as members of the House and Senate. International pieces will likely
include sources from other countries (e.g. scientists) or may simply discuss the
implications of stem cell research on an international level.

10. Circle whether this was a news, feature, opinion, or other type of piece.









11. Note graphic elements using the following abbreviations: (0) none; (1) photograph;
(2) graph; (3) illustration; (4) pull quote; or (5) other (explain). List caption and/or
describe.

12. Often, the lead is the first paragraph, although it can be "delayed" and appear later
as a "nut graph" within the first several paragraphs. Just record the paragraph that
best captures the who, what, when, where, why and how of the story.

13. After reading the entire story, identify the main topic of story. Examples include a
new scientific discovery or a discussion of possible public policy decisions.

14. Identify secondary topic(s), if applicable. For example, articles with a main topic of
scientific discovery may have economic impact as a secondary topic.

15. Identify key terms that are used in the article. Look for words that connote any
additional meaning or are emotionally charged. For example, the words
blastocystt" and "embryo" can both describe the same life stage but carry very
different connotations. Along with blastocystt," note any other scientific terms like
"hematopoetic." Along with "embryo," note any other charged words like "pro-
life" or "anti-life." Other key terms might include the predicted outcomes of the
technology, i.e. the "promise" or "peril" of stem cell research.

16. Identify the number of unique sources used in direct quotations using the following
allegiance, which are drawn from Nisbet et al 2003:

* GOP Opponents Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, J.C. Watts, Sam
Brownback, Jay Dickey, Dave Weldon, Tom Delay, and other GOP members. May
also include state-level as opposed to national-level senators or representatives.

* GOP supporters Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Bill Frist,
Connie Mack, John McCain, Jim Ramstad, Nancy Johnson, Susan Collins and
other GOP supporters. May also include state-level as opposed to national-level
senators or representatives.

* Democratic opponents Ronnie Shows, Nick Rahall, Bart Stupak, Jim Barcia,
Dale Kildee, Christopher John, Solomon Ortiz, Mike McIntyre, David Phelps, or
Ike Skelton. May also include state-level as opposed to national-level senators or
representatives.

* Democratic supporters Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy,
Nita Lowey, Richard Gephardt, Henry Waxman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jim
McDermott and other Democratic supporters. May also include state-level as
opposed to national-level senators or representatives.

* President and his cabinet George W. Bush himself; advisors, aides or
spokespeople for George W. Bush; cabinet members like Tommy Thompson,









director of the agency of Health and Human Services; and Karl Rove, top political
adviser.

* Pro-embryonic stem cell research groups or individuals Groups who stand to
profit, either financially or through potential medical cures. This category includes
the Coalition to Advance Medical Research, Biotechnology Industry Organization,
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (including managing director Carl
Gulbrandsen), Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Parkinson's Foundation,
biotechnology companies (like Geron) or their officers, and financial analysts who
favor embryonicstem cell research.

* Celebrities Well-known public figures who support ES cell research including
Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve.

* Scientists and analysts James Thomson and other scientists. Also includes
administrators and science policy analysts who are affiliated with universities,
hospitals, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Institutes of Health or
the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists should be included regardless of
whether they hold an M.D. or Ph.D. or whether they work in academia or for the
National Institutes of Health.

* Religious groups Catholic Church, Pope, Vatican, National Council of Catholic
Bishops (including Richard Doerflinger), and conservative Protestant groups.

* Anti-embryonic stem cell research groups National Right to Life League,
American Life League, or Family Research Council.

* Ethicists R. Alta Charo, Leon Kass, James Childress, or other bioethicists. Any
ethicists who sit on advisory boards for biotechnology companies should be
counted in this category, as opposed to being counted inthe pro-embryonic stem
cell category.

* Other Political advisers whose stance on ES-cell research is not articulated.
Members of the Clinton administration. Also may include literary or historical
figures like Aldous Huxley, Thomas Jefferson, or figures from history or works of
literature.

Simply put a hatch mark for each new source that is introduced. For example, if
Tommy Thompson, director of Health and Human Services, is quoted more than
once in an article (either directly quoted or paraphrased), include only one hatch
mark in the "Bush administration" box.

If multiple sources of equal rank are quoted directly, give each source a hatch mark.
For example, if Senators Strom Thurmond, Connie Mack and Arlen Specter are all
quoted within the same article, place three hatch marks in the box where marked
"Republican pro-ES cell research."









Any statement attributed to a person or group and nestled between quotation marks
should be counted as a direct quote regardless of length. For example, direct quotes
limited to brief phrases of two to five words still should be considered direct
quotes.

17. List whether the article defines stem cell research in any way. The article may use
technical language and take a paragraph or more to explain the technology, or the
article may include just a short, lay-language definition that is one sentence or less.
In either of these scenarios, circle (1) Yes.

18. If the answer to the previous question was yes, then categorize the definition of
stem cell research. If the explanation was brief and on a basic level, circle (1)
Basic. For example, if the article states that "stem cells are the basic building
blocks of the body" and gives no further explanation, circle (1) Basic. If the article
offers a more detailed, in-depth description of how stem cells are harvested, cloned,
grown, etc. then circle (2) Detailed. For example:

hematopoietic stem cells are the source in the bone marrow from which a constant
stream of red and white blood cells is produced throughout a person's life. Like
embryonic stem cells, they can renew themselves indefinitely, but their potential is
restricted to making just the cells of the blood system (Wade 2001).

19. Determine whether the article outlines the ethical or moral implications in any way
(use the following two questions to help you make this determination). Circle (0)
No or (1) Yes.

20. Note whether the article mentions that embryos must be destroyed in order to
extract embryonic stem cells. Other terminology may include: sacrificing, killing,
or taking a human life. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.

21. Note whether the article mentions that embryos leftover from in vitro fertility
treatments are often discarded. Other terminology may refer to these embryos in a
number of ways: excess, surplus, spare, not needed, in excess of clinical need, or
would otherwise be thrown away. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.

22. Indicate whether the article refers to the potential of stem cell research to yield
treatment for specific diseasess. Circle (0) No or (1) Yes. If yes, then indicate
which diseases.

23. Does the article mention "human cloning" or allude to this procedure? (0) No (1)
Yes

24. Does the article use the term "adult stem cells" or "stem cells derived from adult
cells"? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.

25. Does the article use the term "embryonic stem cells" or "stem cells derived from
human embryos"? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.









26. Indicate whether the article delineates between embryonic and adult stem cell
research in any way. For example, does it clarify how the cells differ in origin or in
application? Circle (0) No or (1) Yes.

27. Indicate whether the article mentions policy or stances on stem cell research taken
by other nations and/or the threat that the U.S. may be left behind. Circle (0) No or
(1) Yes.


Frame Analysis:
After reading through the article, determine what primary frame was used. Often this can
be reduced to a short catch-phrase (e.g., horse race) although you may use longer phrases
or descriptive words if necessary.

In order to determine the frame used, you will need to take into account the main topic of
the story and key terminology. Also consider which sources are quoted and where in the
story the sources are featured. Some stories may feature a secondary frame. If so, please
record this.















REFERENCES


Anderson, D.J., F.H. Gage and I.L. Weissman. 2001. Can stem cells cross lineage
boundaries? Nature Medicine 7: 393-395.

Andsager, J. and L. Smiley. 1998. Evaluating the public information: Shaping news
coverage of the silicone implant controversy. Public Relations Review 24 (2): 183-201.

Associated Press. 2004. Stem cell research becomes a wedge issue for GOP moderates.
USA Today: Oct. 19.

Bartels, W.-L. 2002. Defining agricultural biotechnology: A framing analysis of
newspaper coverage of the Starlink corn incident in the United States from August
2000 to December 2000. Unpublished master's thesis. Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida.

Berke, R. 2001 The President's decision: The constituencies; Bush appears to have
straddled a divide. The New York Times: Aug. 11.

Blum, D., and M. Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford
University.

Bodmer, W. 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.

Bridges, J. A. and R. A. Nelson. 2000. Issues Management: A relational approach. In
Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study
and practice ofpublic relations. S. D. Brunig. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum: 95-115.

Brown, J.D., C.R. Bybee, S.T. Weardon, and D.M. Straughan. Invisible power:
Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity" Journalism Quarterly 64: 45-
54.

Bruni, F. 2001. The president's decision: News analysis; Of principles and politics. The
New York Times: Aug. 10.

Brush, S. 2005. Hoping to avoid brain drain, states push to finance stem-cell research.
Chronicle of Higher Education: Feb. 4.

Bush, G.W. 2005. State of the union address. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2.

Bush, L. 2004. Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush at Victory '04 Rally in St. Augustine,
Florida: Oct. 24.









Carey, J. W. 1975. Communication and culture. Communication Research 2: 173-190.

Carpenter, L. M. 1998. From girls into women: scripts for sexuality and romance in
Seventeen magazine, 1974-1994. The Journal of Sex Research 35 (2): 158-168.

Charo, A. R. 2001. Are we playing God? Or playing human? The Washington Post, Aug.
12.

Chase, M. 1998. Costly blood storage pitched as a hedge to expectant parents. Wall Street
Journal: April 27.

Clark, J. 2001. Squandering our technological future. The New York Times: Aug. 31.

CNN.com. 2002. Reeve: Fund embryonic stem cell research. Published online July 17,
2002. Accessed March 14, 2005.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/24/reeve.stemcell.focus/

Cohen, R. 2001 a. The stem cell student. The Washington Post: July 17.

Cohen, R. 200lb. The mad scientist bogeyman. The Washington Post: Aug. 7.

Connolly, C. 2001 la.

Connolly, C. 2001b. Legislators see opening on stem cell studies: In a divided Congress,
lawmakers are writing bills, scheduling hearings and lobbying President. The
Washington Post, July 17.

Connor, K. 2001. Stem cells: Bush's broken promise. The Washington Post: Aug. 10.

Covello, V.T., and B.B. Johnson. 1987. The social and cultural construction of risk:
Issues, methods, and case studies. In The social and cultural construction of risk:
Essays on risk selection and perception, edited by B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello.
Dordecht, Holland: Reidel.

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the
Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dreifus, C. 2004 Two friends, 242 eggs and a breakthrough: A conversation with Woo
Suk Hwang and Shin Young Moon. The New York Times: Feb. 17.

Dunwoody, S. 1999. Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science,
edited by S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Durant, J.R. 1993. What is scientific literacy? In Science and Culture in Europe edited by
J. Durant and J. Gregory, 129-36. Wilts, UK: Antony Rowe.






77


Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, et al. 1989. "The public understanding of science." Nature 340:
11-14.

Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Elias, P. 2004. Scientists rally around stem cell advocate sacked by Bush. USA Today:
March 18.

Entman, R. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification in a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43:51-58.

Ericson, R., P. Baranek and J. Chan. 1989. Negotiating control: A study of news sources.
Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.

Fassi, C.R. 2002. United States Human Stem Cell Policy Making. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Fountain, J.W. 2001 President's decision does not end the debate. The New York Times:
Aug. 12.

Friedman, S., S. Dunwoody, and C. Rogers. 1999. Communicating Uncertainty: Media
Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Gans, H. 1979. Deciding What's News. New York: Vintage Books.

Gearhart, J. 1998. New potential for human embryonic stem cells. Science 282(5391):
1061-1062.

Gibson, R. and D. Zillman. 1993. The impact of quotation in news reports on issue
perception. Journalism Quarterly 70: 793-800.

Gibson, R. and D. Zillman. 1998. Effects of citation in exemplifying testimony on issue
perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 70: 793-800.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.

Goldstein, A. 2001. Bush stem cell policy cools fervor on Hill. The Washington Post:
Aug. 11.

Gregory, J. and S. Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and
Credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.

Hall, S.S. 2004. Specter of cloning may prove a mirage. The New York Times. Feb. 17.

Hartz, J. and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and
Journalism Threatens America's Future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.






78


Hertog, J., and D. McLeod. 2001. A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A
field guide. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our
Understanding of the Social World, edited by S. Reese, 0. Gandy and A. Grant.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hovland, D. and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 635-50.

Hwang, W. S., Y. J. Ryu, et al. 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem
cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303: 1669-1674.

Irving, D. 1999. When do human beings begin. International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy 19 (3-4):22-46.

Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Kaplan, K. 2005. Study says all stem cell lines tainted. Los Angeles Times: Jan. 24.

Kass, L.R. 2003. Biotechnology: a house divided / a reply. Public Interest 150: 38-62.

Kolata, G. 1995. Crucial advance made in blood cell research. The New York Times, Jan.
26.

LaFollette, M. 1995. Editorial -- wielding history like a hammer. Science
Communication. 16: 235-241.

Lakshmi, Rama. 2001. India plans to fill void in stem cell research; Scientists say
restrictions in U.S. may give them advantage in development. The Washington
Post: Aug. 28.

Lindlof, B.C. and T.R. Taylor. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

MacDonald, C. 2001. Stem cells: A pluripotent challenge. BioScan 13(4): 7-8.

Martin, M.J., A. Muotri, F. Gage and A. Varki. 2005. Human embryonic stem cells
express an immunogenic nonhuman sialic acid. Nature Medicine. Advance online
publication, Jan. 30: 1-5.

McCombs, M. and D.L. Shaw. 1973. The agenda-setting function of the mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly. 36(2): 176-187.

McNeil, D. G. 2001. In a tiny room in Sweden, a large trove of stem cells. The New York
Times: Aug. 29.

Miller, J. D. 1987. Scientific literacy in the United States. In Communicating Science to
the Public. Editede by D. Evered and M. O'Connor. Chichester, UK: Wiley.









Miller, J.D. and L. Kimmel. 2001. Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences,
and Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Miller, J.D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Public Perceptions of Science and Technology:
A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and
Canada. Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences.

Miller, M., and B. Reichert. 2001. The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance:
Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In Framing Public Life:
Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by S.
Reese, 0. Gandy and A. Grant. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National Public Radio. 2001. Talk of the Nation Science Friday. Ira Flatow, moderator:
March 2.

National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators 2002. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.

Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New
York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Nisbet, M.C. 2004. Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 68(1): 131-154.

Nisbet, M.C., D. Brossard and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: the stem cell
controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of
Press Politics. 8(2): 36-70.

Nisbet, M.C., D.A. Scheufele, et al. 2002. Knowledge, reservations or promise? A media
effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication
Research. 29(5): 584-608.

Office of the Press Secretary. 2004. Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in
second 2004 presidential debate. St. Louis, MO: Oct. 9.

Pianin, E. 2001. House speaker reveals opposition to stem cell research. The Washington
Post, July 30.

Pollack, A. 2001. The promise in selling stem cells. The New York Times: Aug. 26.

Powers, A. and F. Fico. 1994. Influences on use of sources at large U.S. newspapers.
Newspaper Research Journal 15: 87-97.

Priest, S.H. 1999. Popular beliefs, media, and biotechnology. In Communicating
Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, edited by S.
Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.









Priest, S.H. 2001. A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Reese, S. 2003. Prologue--Framing public life: a bridging model for media research.
2001. In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of
the Social World edited by S. Reese, 0. Gandy and A. Grant. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Regaldo, A., L. McGinley and S. Lueck. 2001. Top researcher of stem cells to move
abroad. Wall Street Journal: July 16.

Rensberger, B. 1997. Covering science for newspapers. A Field Guide for Science
Writers. D. Blum and M. Knudson. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roefs, W. 1998. From framing to frame theory: a research method turns theoretical
concept. Conference proceedings of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication: Baltimore, MD.

Rogers, C.L. 1999. The importance of understanding audiences. Communicating
Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. S.M. Friedman,
S. Dunwoody and C. L. Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scheufele, D.A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication.
49(1): 103-122.

Schmid, L.A. 2004. Newspaper Framing ofPostpartum Depression: Impact of the
Andrea Yates Case. Unpublished master's thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of
Florida.

Shaw, D. 2000. Medical miracles or misguided media? Los Angeles Times. Feb. 13.

Shoemaker, P.J. and S.D. Reese. 1991. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on
Mass Media Content. New York: Longman.

Silver, L.M. 2001. Watch what you are calling an embryo; and other subtleties that define
the debate. The Washington Post: Aug. 19.

Slater, M.D. and D. Rouner. 1996. How message evaluation and source attributes may
influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism andMass
Communication Quarterly 73(4): 974-991.

Stanley, A. 2001. Bush's travels: visit to John Paul; Bush hears Pope condemn research in
human embryos. The New York Times: July 24.

Stolberg, C.G. 2001. New stem cell issues. The Washington Post: Sept. 3.

Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.






81


Ten Eyck, T. A. and M. Williment. 2003. The national media and things genetic:
Coverage in The New York Times (1971-2001) and The Washington Post (1977-
2001). Science Communication 25(2): 129-152.

Thomson, J.A., J. Itskovitz-Eldor, S.S. Shapiro, M.A. Waknitz, J.J. Swiergiel, V.S.
Marshall and J.M. Jones. 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human
blastocysts. Science 282 (5391): 1145-1147.

Time. 2004. The passions behind social issues. 164(17): 36-37.

Todd, Z., B. Newlich, S. McKeown, and D. Clarke. 2004. Mixing methods in psychology:
The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory of practice. New
York: Francis and Routledge.

Toner, R. 2001. Bush caught in the middle on research on stem cells. The New York
Times: Feb. 18.

Trumbo, C. 2004. Research methods in mass communication research: A census of eight
journals 1990-2000. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 81(2): 417-
436.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2001. Letter to Congress on public
funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research. July 10. Retrieved online on
March 14, 2005.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell71001.htm

USA Today. 2003. USA's stem-cell scientists fear a research "brain drain." May 12.

Varmus, H. 2000. The challenge of making laws on the shifting terrain of science.
Selected proceedings of Genes and Society: Impact of New Technologies on Law,
Medicine andPolicy. Special supplement 28(4): 46-53.

Wade, N. 2000. Teaching the body to heal itself; Work on cells' signals fosters talk of a
new medicine. The New York Times: Nov. 7.

Wade, N. 2001a Grappling with the ethics of stem cell research. The New York Times:
July 24.

Wade, N. 2001b. List of stem cell researchers shows hands had been tied. The New York
Times: Aug. 28.

Walker, D. K. 1997. Saving cord blood a tough call for parents. Chicago Sun-Times: Oct.
19.

Waterman, A.T. 1960. National Science Foundation: A ten-year resume. Science. 131:
1341-1354.






82


Weiss, R. 2001a. Bush backs broad ban on human cloning; prohibition would cover
embryos for research. The Washington Post: June 21.

Weiss, R. 2001b. Scientists use embryos made only for research. The Washington Post:
July 11.

Weiss, R. 2001c. Promising more--and less; Scientists see growth in field, lament limits.
The Washington Post: Aug. 10.

Wilkie, T. 1996. Sources in science: Who can we trust? Lancet 347: 1308-11.

Withey, S.B. 1959. Public opinion about science and the scientist. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 23: 382-388.

Wolfe, A. 2001. Bush's gift to America's extremists. The New York Times: Aug. 19.

Zimmerman, S.V. 2003. Does the State Have Any Business in the Laboratories of the
Nation? The Regulation of Scientific Research. Unpublished master's thesis.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

Zoch, L.M. and VanSlyke Turk, J. 1999. Women making news: Gender as a variable in
source selection. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 75(4): 762-775.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

As a young girl I spent countless hours exploring science: catching crayfish in the

creek near my house, questioning why orb spiders weave patterns into their webs, and

chasing lightning bugs on warm summer nights. I have always been fascinated with what

makes life tick -- the howss" and "whys" behind the smallest things.

This curiosity led me to a number of different pursuits. I majored in biology at

Smith College in Northampton, Mass. I worked in genetic research at the University of

Colorado at Boulder and at the University of Florida. Over the years, I realized that my

gift is not in doing science, but in learning about science and sharing its wonders with

others. I revel in the challenge of taking highly technical, complex scientific information

and presenting it in a way that people like my grandparents will actually understand. I

enjoy removing the jargon and mumbo-jumbo to show people the real "wow" of science.

This passion led me to pursue a master's degree in science/health communication. I

now stand at a new crossroads, unsure of where things might lead. No doubt, I wish to

continue along the same veins, sharing science with those who might not otherwise taste

its richness. However, I am undecided about which direction to pursue. I am confident

that my educational and life experiences, along with the loving support of my friends and

family, will help lead me to the next stage of my career.