Frames and Biotechnology

In the United States, broad ranging public discussion of policy regarding human biotechnologies of the sort that has gone on in Canada, Western Europe, and Australia has largely been lacking (with the possible exception of stem cell research). As with many issues, press coverage of biotech seems to be viewed by politicians, researchers, and the public itself as a proxy for genuine participation in the process of policy making. Given this situation, it becomes important to examine the frames employed by the mainstream media in their coverage of biotechnologies.

In the last forty years, social scientists have demonstrated that frames, defined by Kahneman and Tversky as "the conception of the acts, outcomes, and contingencies associated with a particular choice," exert a great influence on decision making. Swiss communications researcher Urs Dahinden, in a 2002 study, argued that frames are "relevant on all levels and in all phases of mass communication processes (public relations, journalism, media content, media reception)." He found that multiple frames have been used in covering biotechnologies, and asked two key questions: "To what extent are conflicting advocacy groups able to promote their specific frames on an issue? To what extent do the media follow these attempts or resist them by presenting their own, less biased frames?" Based on a content analysis of U.S. mainstream media, I will provide some tentative answers to these questions.