Comparative Analyses of Public Discourse and Discourses About the Public in Relation To

Coyle Page 1 27/05/2018

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

Fiona Coyle and Jenny Kitzinger

Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGen), 6 Museum Place, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3BG.

Progress so far: Work on the project commenced in September 2006. Fiona started by familiarising herself with the UK genomics centres and with other academic research on stem cells and various ‘publics’. A general outline was then devised as to how to approach stage 1 of the research: reviewing research into public attitudes to/engagement with stem cells. This review is now well underway. Studies were located using keyword searches in academic databases and Google, via stakeholder sites, and the websites of funding bodies and genomics centres. (A second search phase will revisit this approach, and use other methods too).

Every item of research identified so far is currently being in-put into Atlas-ti, along with rtf copies of the papers/available raw data. Each item has been summarised to record its key questions and findings. Each one has also been indexed by six key variables. These are: when the study was conducted, where it was conducted, the type of stem cell research in question, the type of public studied, the methods used and how/where the study was located by the researcher. This table is being used both to systematically organise the data and to begin to provide an ‘at-a-glance’ overview of shifts in research questions and findings between countries, between methods, and over time.

Some initial reflections: From the initial work it appears that, in the USA, research into public opinion on stem cells has been dominated by opinion poll approaches, generally initiated by stakeholder groups and contracted out to specialist firms. These surveys tend to collapse ‘publics’ into one of two categories: voters or religious persons. They generally suggest that supporters of President Bush/Republicans and Catholics/Evangelical Christians, who are often represented as protesters against embryonic stem cell research, are actually in favour of it, if by a small majority. In contrast, studies in the UK follow a tradition of qualitative research, with data gathered through interviews and engagement events. The UK data also represent a wider range of publics. However, owing to the relative newness of many of these studies, as yet there is little in the way of published outputs compared to the US. In terms of continental Europe (English-speaking outputs), ‘public opinion’ research is dominated by the Eurobarometer studies, and some public engagement events in Germany that have been written up in English. Finally, Australia and New Zealand took a qualitative/quantitative approach, utilising surveys, focus groups and interviews to triangulate results. It is notable that New Zealand has employed the ‘upstream’ UK model, and its Bioethics Committee is currently running a series of public engagement events around the use of human embryos for research.

The next step: The next step will be systematically to examine UK policy/consultation documents around stem cell research to explore how they mobilise ideas about the public and draw on ‘public opinion’ research. Fiona also hopes to carry out parallel work in New Zealand in the spring.