... 71.4.
3.15. .
. ‘

~ A. 2.;;-»

.21 I. ‘

11

‘3 .
Ir'vu-n-

.(i

 

wanna

 

Mtfimggm Mil/lllI/l/l/Il/le/llll/l/i‘lilf/l

University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Biotechnology in the Public Eye,
1973-1994:
A Content Analysis of

TIME, NEWSWEEK and mgfsby NEWS & WORLD REPORT

Susan Lee Peterson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . A . degree in Journal ism

 

Major professor

 

Date M“? 7,: /?75

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to roman this chockom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton dot. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|| | |

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
W

 

”3-9.!

 

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE PUBLIC EYE, 1973-1994:
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF

11$.me
BY

Susan Lee Peterson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1996

ABSTRACT

BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE PUBLIC EYE, 1973-1994:
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF

EMEWANDLLW
By

Susan Lee Peterson

A content analysis of three news magazines was conducted to assess
coverage of biotechnology from 1973 through 1994, a period of controversy and
growth for this form of science. Coverage was figured by analyzing all
biotechnology articles during the 21-year period in the magazines as listed in the
Index to W. Content was coded according to 22 coding questions
that inquired as to length, tapics, sources and beneficial, detrimental or balanced-
neutral assertions.

These data reveal the continued presence of biotechnology in the top news
magazines. Of the three magazines, W increased
coverage through time, while mm and Iime slightly decreased coverage.
Scientific and medical topics dominated all other biotechnology topics. Industrial
sources spoke most often, and agricultural sources were clearly absent.

Although a notable amount of coverage was non-j udgmental, coverage was

found to be more positive than negative through time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Stephen Lacy for his invaluable
expertise and guidance, patience and humor throughout the research and writing of this
thesis, and Dr. Todd Simon and Dr. James Dearing for their insight and critiques. I
would also like to thank Dr. Michael Drager and Kammie Haynes Richardson for their

assistance and friendship, and my family for their support and encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ l
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 8
Public Involvement
The Biotech Evolution
Sources
3. RESEARCH METHOD ........................................................ 37
Pretest
4. RESULTS ........................................................................ 43
5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ....................................... 55
Appendix

A. CODING INSTRUMENT

CONTENT ANALYSIS CODING PROTOCOL .......................... 63
CODING PROCEDURE ...................................................... 63
B. CIRCULATION FIGURES ................................................... 71
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................... 72

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Average number of sources per story with a given topic ........................... 49
2. Average number and percentages of assertions made per topic ................... 50
3. Average number and percentages of assertions made by sources ................. 51
4. Percentages of beneficial, detrimental and non-judgmental assertions

made in TIME, NEWSWEEK, and US NEWS, 1974-1994 ................ 53

. Circulation Figures for various years from 1973-1994 ............................. 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Cumulative number of stories per year in TIME, NEWSWEEK and

U.S. NEWS, 1974-1994 ........................................................... 45
2. Number of articles in TIME, NEWSWEEK and U.S. NEWS, 1974-1994 ...... 47

INTRODUCTION

"...In the media, biotechnology underwent a metamorphosis from 'a runaway
science of genetic engineering' to a new 'technological frontier.”1

For centuries, scientific inquiry has proceeded without much fanfare. Years
might pass before a project came to fruition or the announcement of a new discovery
was made, and until then there was the impression of science as a Cloistered activity
with scientists researching quietly behind closed doors. Such may still sometimes be
the ease; research does take time. But when a discovery is made known to the public,
the scientific community has also known about and been discussing the phenomenon
long before the media even broke the news.

In their report on “The Place of the Public in the Conduct of Science,“ Lappe
and Martin explained this characteristic propriety:

Scientific research proceeds according to general methods that have
been formulated and accepted by the scientific community; its results
are measured against the theories, principles, or relationships that this
same community has either observed, elucidated or developed.
Accordingly, scientific research has been largely a self-defined
enterprise, rarely, if ever, subject to external scrutiny.2

During the 19703, a form of research developed to challenge this approach to

scientific discovery. The study and applications of biotechnology - also known as

2
recombinant DNA research -- bring a cadre of questions and practieal possibilities.

The potential impact of biotechnology on every day life pulled the research from
behind closed doors.

Biotechnology focuses on the genetic code for life, DNA, and involves the
technique of moving pieces of genetic material from one organism to another across
species lines3 and changing these life forms for various research and commercial
applications. Biotechnology has expanded from basic research in plant sciences to
medical research and human genetic applications of the technology. One researcher
looks at biotechnology as transferring genes, either from one variety of a horticultural
crop to another one, or transferring genes or genetic information across lines that
natural breeding prevents.4

Biotechnology is not new to humanity; forms of this research and its application
have been evolving in nature and laboratories for centuries. Early methods of
hybridization, or cross-breeding plants for specific traits -- which is what Austrian
Gregor Mendel did to identify the laws of heredity in 1865 - have long been the
foundation for successful agricultural practices. Cross-breeding livestock for certain
traits, or agricultural products such as corn or other varieties for higher yields have
been occurring for years.‘

In October 1977, the National Institutes of Health issued a statement describing
this new form of research:

The new recombinant DNA technique has resulted in a profound and

qualitative change in the field of genetics. Developments in genetic
research, particularly in the last four years, open avenues to science that

3
were previously inaccessible. Hypotheses and ideas that were not
testable can now be rigorously investigated. Understanding of basic
biologieal phenomena has already been enhanced.‘5

Biotechnology has enabled researchers to create new and improved products,
such as agricultural crops able to withstand disease and drought, livestock with leaner
meat and dairy cows with increased milk production. Medical applications of
biotechnology include ways to identify and treat genetic disorders or remedy hereditary
defects, as well as pursue research that may find answers to various diseases. Some
genetic techniques may involve only a few genes (such as with the Flavr-Savr tomato, a
trademarked tomato that has a longer shelf-life, or new varieties of plants that may be
able to survive harsh climates), while other methods are more complicated and involve
using thousands of genes, such as finding out how to solve a medical or hereditary
problem.

Biotechnology research is moving to the forefront as a possible key to
controlling, if not ending sickness and hunger. Because there is greater medical and
industrial interest in this research, it may be asked how much information on
biotechnology has been available to the public through the media.

The impact of biotechnology's budding developments are described by a
rcportcr for What:

Few other developments etch so sharply the ethical, moral and social
issues involved in the modern pursuit of scientific knowledge and its
exploitation as does the fledging of the new industry of
biotechnology. . . 7

4
Pfund and Hofstadter acknowledge the media's role in informing the public,
reinforcing the importance of science coverage as an educational tool.

Despite the uncertain tenor of press coverage, the importance of
science news cannot be underestimated. The media are the most
effective vehicle for widespread dissemination of science—related events,
playing a pivotal role in shaping the public's views of scientific or
biomedical innovations and their implications. Furthermore, media

coverage helps dispel] the insular and esoteric image so long associated
with the professions of science and medicine.8

The foregoing statements may be continued to include the fields of agriculture
and industry, also closely aligned to medicine with their foundations in basic scientific
research. It is for these reasons, and the widespread effect of biotechnology, that this
study is integral to a further understanding of coverage of this issue in the three
newsmagazines.

The focus of this study is biotechnology as it is covered in lime, W
and W over a 21-year time period. The field itself is
controversial, providing ground for debate as to whether or not biotechnology research
is beneficial or detrimental to society, and how this information is reported and
presented to the public can largely influence how the public perceives scientific
research and inquiry. Further, what voices speak for biotechnology can influence
public acceptance or rejection of biotechnology and its resulting federal guidelines of

approval or restraint.

5
The field of biotechnology, as with most scientific inquiry, is continually

changing. However, biotechnological change has not been documented over a lengthy
time period. Research on recombinant DNA - the early term for biotechnology
research - first earne under the media and public’s scrutiny in the early 19703.
Various studies have focused on certain years and aspects of biotechnology coverage,
but none have focused on coverage from its inception into the media forum and public
debate to a recent year, and in news magazines.

Assessing this 21-year time period, from 1973 through 1994, can be of
assistance to various people or institutions interested in biotechnology and science, as
well as science reporting. Given the time period and depth of the topic covered here,
media researchers and scholars may wish to answer both specific and general questions
about biotechnology coverage or science coverage within their own studies. Industries
or parties who have a vested interest in the media’s coverage of biotechnology, as well
as the lay reader’s understanding of biotechnology and perceptions of coverage, can
benefit from knowing the voices behind the articles and how changes have occurred
through time. In their study of newspaper coverage of biotechnology, Susanna Hornig
Priest and Jeffery Talbert point out, “The directions scientific research takes are
inseparable from the directions of governmental science policy, industrial interest in the
development of technology, and, to a much lesser extent, pressure from activist citizen

groups.”9

6
Finally, given the evolving, complex nature of biotechnology, this study may

also provide insight to the direction of future biotechnology research and general

science reporting of its discoveries and events.

CHAPTER ONE - NOTES

1. Christopher Plein, "Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of Issue
Definition." We: 16. n0-4 (Autumn 1991): 476-

2. Marc Lappe and Patricia Archbold Martin, "The Place of the Public rn the

Conduct of Science," MW 51, no. 6 (September 1978)
1536.

3. "Ferrying Genes rn Bacteria, Eagles, Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1,2 no. 1 i(Spring, 1994): 10. As cited from Iawrence Busch, W
m i h l 1 in .

4. Susan Peterson, "Building from the Past," Emu-es, Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, 12, no.1 (Spring 1994): 5.

5. William Beal established the first seed testing laboratory in the United
States at Michigan Agricultural College, now known as Michigan State University.
"Beal was the first person to cross-fertilize corn to increase yield through hybrid
vigor." As cited in Engages, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, 12, no. 1
(Spring 1994): 6.

6. National Institutes of Health, Final Environmental Impact Statement on NIH
Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, June 23, 1976
(October, 1976) 1 at V. As cited in Lappe and Martin, WW
Reyim 51, no.6 (September 1978) 1535.

7. Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 12, 1980, as cited rn: Nancy Pfund and
Laura Hofstadter, "Biomedical Innovation and the Press, W
31, (Spring): 152.

8. Nancy Pfund and Laura Hofstadter, "Biomedieal Innovation and the Press, "
Icumalctflemmmu’raticn 31. (Spring): 145-

9. Susanna Homig Priest and Jeffery Talbert, "Mass media and the ultimate
technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology," W
Communicatimlcnmal 10, no. 1 (1994). 76.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Studies of science reporting and related issues provide the framework for this
study of biotechnology in the media. These studies provide the background for the
journalistic and societal perspectives, as well as a brief scientific understanding of
biotechnology, necessary to draw comparisons and conclusions from the content of the
magazines.

It has long been recognized that science and its inquiry is important to the
welfare of modern society. It may also be argued that just as signifieant is the public's
familiarity with scientific endeavor and progress, and the means to this are often
through the media.

In the 1960s, science was the subject of a new book discussing the importance
and difficulties of relating this type of news to the public.1 Though science had been a
news topic for decades, Kreighbaum was one of the first to argue that a diligent press
was nwded to educate and spark public interest in science. He contended that science
was usually ignored by the media, and when it wasn't, scientific discoveries were
exploited and pepularized. Such exploitation would be damaging to democracy
because, after all, "A scientifically illiterate polity could not possibly come to sound or

rational decisions."2

9
In his review of literature discussing science and the media, Doman discusses

the suggestion that a general public enthusiastic about science is preferable to one that
is skeptical, unconcerned or ignorant. Dornan's research of various literature reveals a
concern on behalf of journalism where "science communication might be improved"3 to
not only inspire interest, but to combat misperceptions and educate the public.

Perhaps one of the most daunting tasks of a journalist working on a scientific
story is how to best relate the sometimes technical, evolving discovery in a clear and
interesting way in limited space and with a limited timeframe in which to research. At

times, this responsibility has seemed to be an oxymoron. Friedman explains:

Hard news is still the most prevalent format in journalism, and its
practice has some detrimental effects on science communication. For
example, its emphasis on currentness creates problems for science
writers because scientific discoveries do not happen overnight and so do
not have a natural news peg.‘
By "not happening overnight, " science does not appear to have the timeliness of
a regular news event unless one is created. Friedman continues that in the case of the
science organization or scientist seeking media coverage, news events are created by
conducting press conferences and giving speeches, as well as sending out news
releases.’ By conniving news events, and thus providing a framework for an agenda of
the specific interest or organization, the initial discovery is given its own occasion and
timeliness is created.
But how science news is related is a challenge for writers working for a specific

publication and audience, and who are trying to explain these often difficult topics with

10
limited time and resources. One of the most common forms of writing for journalists

covering science stories are explanatory features6 that explain a specific topic in more
detail. Given the nature of the subject matter it is often necessary to spend more time
and space covering the topic.

In a 1964 symposium on communications and medical research, Dr. James

Shannon, director of the National Institutes of Health, commented,

. . . [Science] stories of the general sort are necessarily interpretive in
nature, since science is outside the day-to-day experience of the

reader. The writing must be interpretive and highly editorialized. It is
necessary to discuss the mechanics by which the event took place, the
investigator as a person, and the relationship to the advance of

science. . .

He added further,

In my experience, most bad reporting comes from a frivolous disregard

for the serious matter, or from the fact that the man who writes the

story can't get it published unless he finds some peg to hang it on. It's

usually the newspeg that causes the distorted headline and the rewrite

job that does damage to science.7

In a 1973 survey, Friedman found that writing explanatory features and

interpretive or investigative articles were preferred by journalists because they could
explain more science to their readers and have more influence on readers" opinions.

Writing "hard news" stories for science topics was misleading and a disservice,

according to the journalists polled for the survey. They further analogized, "Trying to

11
fit a science story into a hard news mode was like trying to put a size nine foot into a

size five shoe. "'
Friedman's survey also found that the journalists had, indeed, overcome the
traditional hard news approach, with 51 percent of 144 science writers writing mostly

interpretive rather than hard news articles.9

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Within the premise of democracy is that the first amendment protects the
public's right to make informed decisions and function as a self-governing body. The
establishment of a free press ensures this process. When biotechnology became a
subject of news and concern to the general public in the early 19708, public information
and involvement also became an issue that would persist throughout the next two
decades.

Social safety concern is not new territory for the scientific community, which
gave up its right to be left alone when it developed nuclear energy with its potential
negative impact on the environment. This case has been made stronger by the
succession of global warming and ozone problems. In part, the question of who is
responsible for ensuring the safety of the citizenry revolves back to the citizens

themselves as a part of the governmental process, and is not fully the burden of

12
scientists. In turn, industrial interests have concern for their own stakes in the budding

biotechnology industry.

Miller identifies two purposes for communicating the scientific information to
the public: " . . .the creation or enhancement of scientific literacy, and the dissemination
of information relevant to the formulation of science policy. "10 He explains that a
considerable part of mass media science writing is devoted to increasing the public's
understanding of science, such as articles in W or other similar
specialty magazines. But other articles on the issues, problems or risks of new science
news are helpful in educating and informing the public on possible present or upcoming
science policy issues.

Lappe and Martin argue that the public's right to participate in scientific
decision making is grounded within the first amendment protection of "producing an
informed public capable of conducting its own affairs. ""

The intellectual implications and potential social repercussions of genetic
research - whether imminent or merely perceived - make this scientific
activity particularly important in the process of self-government.12 '

In Virginia Pharmacy the Supreme Court addressed the free-enterprise economy
and observed that resources are primarily appropriated through private economic
decisions. Therefore, the Court held that it was both a matter of "public interest, in
that society had a specific interest in the free flow of commercial information and a
general interest in the free flow of all types of information to enlighten public decision

making)“

13
Finally, with federal funding channeled through universities and government

research programs, the public has a stake in knowing the outcome of those
experiments.

Trachtrnan, on the other hand, contends that a public's understanding of
scientific research is not necessary nor particularly relevant to the ethical, moral or
political problems posed by a democracy. ‘4 Trachtrnan believes it wouldn't be worth
the trouble to make a concerted effort to teach the public; that if the public had to make
"crucial decisions about science, " the plethora of scientific information in the
marketplace already is either disputed among scientists themselves, tentative,
unsupported, or qualified and it would confuse the public and further delay any
decision making.

But with the growing realization that there should be more public understanding
and therefore involvement through the government in this new research, there was
precedence for the concern on behalf of scientists. Freedom of inquiry has meaning for

the lay citizen as well as the scientist desiring to delve further into his own field.

In 1979, in the W, James Ferguson noted:

It is now apparent that American Science will be faced in the coming
years with a persistent challenge to what is perhaps its most fundamental
value - freedom of inquiry. This emerging theme has been clearly
signalled by recent proposals for federal control of recombinant DNA
technology. ‘5

One early example of the precedence of government intrusion on science

progress is that of the former U.S.S.R. and Stalin's repression of modern genetics in

14
the 19303. Denisovich Lysenko, a plant biologist, professed to the scientific

community that "the inheritance of physical characteristics could be manipulated in
plants by their environment. "‘6 Stalin upheld Lysenko's mistaken claim and supported
the banning of all experiments in traditional genetics - keeping Russian researchers out
of "the mainstream of biological research in agriculture, genetics and heredity for 30
years. .11

Although it is not the purpose here to discuss, nor debate federal control of
recombinant DNA, it may be seen that at the time - and earlier in the mid-19703 -

there was federal and national interest in how the issue of biotechnology research

should be conducted.

THE BIOTECH EVOLUTION

A turning point for the study and application of biotechnology was a letter to the
editor of Science magazine on September 21, 1973, in which two scientists related their
concern about recombinant DNA research and its unknown risks to the ecosystem.
"Previous discussions had taken place among the scientists conducting the experiments,
but this letter put the matter before the whole scientific community and the general

public, even though the latter took little notice at the time. "'3

Up to this point, little news of these developments had passed outside
the tightly-knit community of molecular biologists. Any reports that did
appear were in scientific journals, in a language virtually
incomprehensible to laymen. '9

15
The alleged risks of biotechnology research were soon being discussed within
the public forum of the media, and not strictly within the confines of scientific
discourse. The letter stands alone in the history of science as leading the National
Academy of Science (NAS) to name a committee to study the risks, and this assembly
in turn called for the suspension of certain types of recombinant DNA research until the
risks could be assessed at a world meeting.20 The significance of this monumental step

was unprecedented.

Not since 1939 - when a handful of physicists asked their colleagues to
stop publishing atomic data to prevent the information from falling into
German hands, had scientists tried such self-policing.21

Researchers obeyed the edict, and " . . .by all reports, the resulting moratorium on
research was conscientiously observed in laboratories around the world. "22 Research
(subject to certain cautions and restraints) resumed after the international conference at
the Asilomar Center in California in 1975. At the time, conference organizers were
warned that they were opening "Pandora's Box, " a metaphor often applied to
biotechnology research,23 because they were holding the meeting and that sixteen
reporters had been invited to attend. Ironically, though organizers had hesitated to
invite the press, they would subsequently point out the press" presence as "public
participation. "2‘

That unknown possible dangers of recombinant DNA research were being

discussed in a forum, prompted the perception that "outsiders were being left out of

16
decisions about science. . . "25 Questions and ultimately, concern about biotechnology

research surrounded the idea that scientists have a moral responsibility to consider the
potential impact their research might have on society.”5
Ironically, given the interest and concern about the subject, after the

moratorium was lifted the first and only article found among the study sources in 1974,

wasinIimc.

The U.S. investigators, having taken a step with few or no precedents
in the history of science, also urged their colleagues round the world to
follow their lead until potential hazards can be better evaluated and
controlled.”

Concern was most apparent in the article and discussion of DNA and its possible
applications framed the story.

But the groundwork for future discussion, the disagreements surrounding the
pursuit of further research in general, had already been; placed with the frequent
haunting question that scientists were somehow playing God with their research. In the

March 10, 1975 issue of mm, the lead question framed the story:

Do scientists involved in the quest for fundamental knowledge have the
right to create new organisms that are potential health hazards?”

Questions of concern provide the cornerstone for controversy in the

biotechnology issue, and studies and papers have been done that trace media coverage

17
of biotechnology at various points in time. In particular, a few have found similar

patterns in their research and results.

In W, Rae Goodell discusses the early years of

biotechnology research, or recombinant DNA as it was known at the time. Goodell
asserts that there are three phases of recombinant DNA influence that can be found in
both the scientific community and the press: first, the development of the recombinant
DNA safety controversy from about 1974 to 1977; second, the diminishing of the
controversy from about 1977 to 1979; and third, the shift of attention to the genetic
engineering industry, from about 1979 to the present.29

Goodell’s discussion is an overview of observations of biotechnology in industry
and the media in general, and does not discuss or assess a specific type of press or its
coverage. Her analysis for W was drawn from documents,
transcripts and press clippings files in the Recombinant DNA Controversy Oral History
Collection, Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Library, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.30

Christopher Plein's review of biotechnology as a policy issue during the past
two decades argues that the biotech industry was influenced by the efforts of a well-
organized coalition of research interests to define biotech in positive terms through an

agenda-setting process.

Until the beginning of the 19803, biotechnology conjured up images of
environmental risk and social uncertainty. Today biotech is largely
characterized by economic themes such as patent rights, international
trade, research funding and regulatory policy. . .The major factor in the

transformation was the effortlssof a coalition of interests committed to

the development and application of biotech in the fields of agriculture,

industry and medrcrn .
Plein contends that those interests dedicated to the commercial development of
biotechnology "that converged at the dawn of the 19803, "32 have been successful in
gaining acceptance of this science as a tool of economic development for new, related
industries. Plein offers well-documented analyses and reviews of various literature,
"interview data, public documents and other sources,"33 but also acknowledges that the
process of issue definition is never complete. Therefore, given the multi-faceted field
of biotechnology, it is an area that is still evolving and related policies - and industries
- may continue to change.

Pfund and Hofstadter's study covers the biotech industry in selected
newspapers, magazines, and the science and medical press from 1976 to early 1980. It
is a study geared toward policy-oriented coverage of four biomedical areas, including
recombinant DNA research. The study does not say specifically how the magazines
and newspapers were selected for analysis, except for consideration of geographic
variation and differing audiences. The seven newspapers selected were the New York
Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, San
Francisco Chronicle, and Wall Street Journal. The ten news magazines (which did not
include U. S. News) were Time, Newsweek, National Review, New Republic.
Progressive, Chemical Week, Oremical and Engineering News, Business Week, Nation

and Economist. Six science and medical periodicals were also examined, including:

19
Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature, New Scientist, Science, Science

Digest and Science News.

Pfund and Hofstadter state that rather than attempting an all-inclusive survey of
coverage, they focused on critical time periods in the four biomedical arenas; with
recombinant DNA research being examined from 1976 through 1980. Like Plein, they
find that economic and political interests had a strong impact on content, and that the
change from a science issue to an economic "interest" was beginning during early

coverage of the issue.

Biotechnology symbolizes the aggressive pursuit of new products, new
means of production. . . predictably then, the denouement of the DNA

story ends up not in the science section, but in the business and
finance.34

Pfund and Hofstadter acknowledge that not all sources were examined for all
years of their four-and-a-half year study, and of those sources that were, general news
magazines and specialty magazines such as W. W
News, W and Mamie (including the others listed) were combined
together in the "magazines" category.

Pfund and Hofstadter recognize the evolution of biotechnology from a risk-

"35 as correlating

oriented issue to one of "emerging (if still hypothetical) benefits,
directly with the fact that as research progressed, risks became less newsworthy and

industrial interests would be able to capitalize on that progress. Whereas risk interests

20
and the right of the public to have a role in determining science policy once centered

around the university, industrial interests changed the venue.

According to her research, Susanna Hornig Priest would agree. In her study of
newspaper coverage of biotechnology, industrial rather than academic interests set
terms of the media discussion of recombinant DNA and other biomedical. research
during the 19703, "downplaying" controversy and criticism. The only other study
found addressing specific aspects of biotechnology in the media, Hornig Priest's and
Talbert’s study examined newspaper coverage of biotechnology in agriculture and
medicine in 1991 and 1992. Their data was drawn from the Newsbank newspaper
index, which selected all stories indexed under the keyword “biotechnology” from
January 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992. A total of 132 stories were selected, but it is
noted that the Newsbank index does not include wire stories.

Their research also shows the role of issue-definition in creating a positive
environment of public opinion for biotechnological development and portrays
biotechnology to be an economic opportunity rather than an environmental risk.36

Mazur's research suggests that the biotechnology dispute may be different from
typical technological controversies. Though his research does not discuss nor do an in-
depth assessment of biotechnology, he finds a correlation between media coverage and
public bias against technological controversies. His research suggests that the public
can have a bias against the controversy in question when media coverage increases, and
thus, "the appearance of a dispute works to the benefit of the opponents of the

technology. "37 The study explains:

21

. . .The quantity of coverage of a technical controversy can have as much
effect on public attitudes as the semantic content of the stories that are
presented. The public takes seriously any suggestion that a technology
may be risky.”

Thus if as Goodell asserts, the biotech safety controversy evolved from about 1974
through 1977, and with that the public awareness of potential risk through the media,
the public would be skeptical and apprehensive. Unless, of course, new discoveries
benefitting the welfare of the public came to light and new information diminished
concern. There is a large literature base exploring risk issues that is not addressed
within the body of this work.”

How the public deals with risk issues, in particular understanding biotechnology
issues as portrayed through the media, is the topic Susanna Hornig Priest's study of
media frames and schema processing in "Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology. "

The focus of the study was that differences in evaluating risk perceptions between
experts and the lay public may be due in part to the lay public trying to bring together
or reason from previous science information or knowledge, than from misunderstanding
scientific data. The study suggests that in general terms framing and schema
processing can be a part of gauging public opinion of biotechnology and that people do
draw from related topics in order to understand an issue.

Hornig Priest differentiates between framing, as the writing process through

which complex issues are distilled for a news story resulting in the selectivity of certain

22
subthemes over others,‘0 and schema processing, a reader perceiving an issue or story

as related to something previously read.“

Hornig Priest suggests that through framing, which "suggests or invites certain
interpretations of a particular issue, the mass media may have their most powerful
effects and that framing effects may be particularly significant for newly emerging
issues. "‘2 Schema processing by a reader would tend to be subjective and involve
varying degrees of perception.

For Hornig Priest’s study, small groups of adults and students discussed their
perceptions of agricultural and medical biotechnology issues. The focus group results
suggest that lay discussion revolves around impacts and benefits, rather than other
related issues; from previous research results that showed newspaper coverage of

biotechnology to be dominated by industrial and economic interests, Hornig Priest

reasons that the lay discussion results may be due to "fiarned" media coverage.

. . .To suggest generally, that biotechnology is being framed as a
scientific development issue, asks if these developments could be
understood in the context of some other schema? The difficulty

of imagining an alternative may say something about the strength of this
framing influence and the primacy of scientific explanation in American
culture - its embeddedness in everyday thought.

The study acknowledges that although it provides only weak and indirect
evidence to show framing effects on public discussion, it could be a method that would
be useful for further understanding and discussion of biotechnology as portrayed

through the media - the only major avenue of new public education.

23
Perhaps no other testing ground could be a more reliable measure of public

opinion than what people will eat. On May 18, 1994, the biotechnology industry
reached a milestone when the FDA approved the first product of a genetically
engineered plant, the Flavr-Savr tomato, which was modified by gene manipulation to
delay spoilage and improve flavor. With the new Flavr-Savr tomato on grocery store
shelves, other products will also be entering the market. In a 1994 public opinion
survey measuring attitudes toward genetically-engineered foods, 30 percent of the
1,036 adults polled acknowledged that they "somewhat favor" genetically engineered
products, compared to 14 percent who strongly favor these products. Twenty-five
percent somewhat oppose genetically-engineered products and 22 percent strongly

oppose them. time percent did not have an opirnion in response to the issue.“

SOURCES

Sources influence the credibility of an article's arguments, and the prevalence of
certain sources can be of further interest to identify imbalance and a potential bias of
the journalist, or perceived bias in the minds of the reading public. According to
Pfund and Hofstadter, "Manipulation of press coverage often occurs when reporters

rely uncritically and exclusively on certain 'autlnoritative ' sources for news. "‘5

24
In their study of four areas of biomedical innovation coverage in the press,

including biotechnology during the years 1976 to the first part of 1980, Pfund and
Hofstadter discovered that coverage relied heavily on industry points of view.“ "The
most quotable sources were those engaged in the biotechnology pursuit -- the scientist
entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and corporate chairmen of the boards. "‘7

It was also found that scientists and other sources who did not share the
generally positive perspectives of those with industrial interests were not cited as often.

"During the height of the controversy, from late 1976 to mid-1977, industry coverage

in newspapers, magazines and journals regularly carried opinions from dissenting
experts and laypersons. "‘8

But the study discovered that in late 1977 there was a significant change in
coverage. According to Goodell, the reasons for this sudden decline of negative
opirnion in the media are varied, but are in large part due to increased lobbying efforts
on behalf of scientists concerned about legislation that would curb future basic research
efforts. Some of the proposed legislation would have panels staffed primarily by
nonscientists, as well as the right of local communities to enact research conditions
more severe than the federal ones.49

In the April 11, 1977, issue MW, the controversy is
featured under the title, "Creating New Forms of Life - Blessing or Curse?" The
Cambridge, Mass. , city council "...is allowing research to continue there, but only

under tougher guidelines than those published by NIH. "50 Reseachers could see that

some communities (such as Harvard) would also be at a disadvantage with local

25
regulations, and they were further concerned about competition from abroad and their

own plans for proceeding with the new information at hand. Thus, a new lobbying
effort began, with some scientists changing their minds about the presumed "unsafe"
research and the new industry possibilities ahead.

"By the end of 1977, when the mainstream scientific community suggested that
there was no cause for debate, reporting dissident views decreased sharply. Direct
quotes from critical scientists or environmentalists occurred as the exception rather than
the rule. "51

Pfund and Hofstadter see this discrepancy in source use to be a bias in source
selection, and that this may come from within the professions themselves. They offer
that at the individual and professional levels, the science community has its own circle
of communicative and respected voices. A reporter may come to rely on these sources,
and perhaps, hesitate to stray from them or in some way infringe on the accepted norm
by reporting (extensively) the views of the "dissident" scientists for fear of alienating
any established rapport.’2

Pfund and Hofstadter's reasoning is not new to source use discussions.
Reporters in general - not exclusively science reporters - can fall prey to the
assimilation of source values, and it perhaps should not be surprising in an arena such
as science, where sources are often seen as intelligent and powerful, if not intimidating.

Similarly, in a study of source-reporter relationships conducted 20 years earlier,
Gieber and Johnson found that reporters covering a city hall beat had become

"unwitting adjuncts to city hall.“3

26
Cooperation and collaboration among sources and reporters can be keys to

assimilating values, they explain. In their study of the roles of city hall reporters and
the roles of sources used in the studied "city hall, " Gieber and Johnson discovered that
a mutual dependence can evolve between the two roles: one that has a nwd to send a
message and the other to retrieve that message and deliver it to the public. In doing so,
a common interest in the purposes of communication can develop between the two
groups, forming in some cases, an avoidance of conflict on both parts. Initially, the
sources may believe that the reporters should pass unmediated inforrrnation to the
public, and the reporters reserve the right to determine how to present that
information.54 But by establishing rapport with the other, and the reporters"
dependence upon those sources through time and the security of kiowing a dependable
source, the communication goals of botin parties begin to overlap.

Gieber and Johnson explore how this assimilation can evolve between reporters
and sources, and briefly why, but they do not assess. how it can be avoided, or if
avoiding assimilation is completely possible; a tenuous line oftern exists between
establishing a professional source rapport of mutual respect, and one of inadvertent
collaboration.

Based on the Pfund and Hofstadter research, Goodell’s, as well as Gieber's and
Johnson's, one might assume that the mainstream scientists began to irnitiate positive
opinions of research in the mid-19703, leading eventually to the burgeoning of the
industrial and economic aspects of biotechnology. Further, Pfund and Hofstadter

continue, "The current abundance of benefits-oriented stories indicates that much of

27
science reporting is being influenced by the mainstream science community (as well as

by the private sector), which is intent on avoiding debate and creating a positive image
for the research. "’5

In a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Sciernce in
1978, U.S. Representative Richard Ottinger expressed his support for critics of DNA
research, and implored the minimum federal standards to all DNA research and any
commercial applications. Most interesting, however, was his comment on a January
13, 1978, editorial in Science magazine in which a "warning" was sent to researchers
involved in recombinant DNA research, that "A scientist who furnished the pretext for
restrictive legislation could count on the ill will of many of those he or she most wants
to impress. "56 Ottinger's reply to the editorial correlates with the tlneory of a science
community closely linked with its own commmunicative voices, that "any scientist who
lends support to more prescriptive regulation will be unpopular with his colleagues and
. . .scientists who themselves urge constraints may similarly be alienated from the
scientific mainstream. '57

In a study of biotechnology coverage in newspapers, Horrnig Priest and Talbert
found coverage to be primarily "producer—driven, " with little attention paid to outside
interests. "Industry and university sources combined accounted for 72.9 percernt of all
the arguments presented; not only activists but agricultural and even governmental
sources were relatively invisible in the news.”

Conversely, in a survey of scientists from both the physical/biological and the

social/behavioral sciences, Dunwoody found that scientists working in govemment or

28
in public institutions such as universities, talk to journalists more often than those in

private industry.59 A reason for the lack of industrial contact may be due in part to
industry policies of protecting information, whereas government and university
scientists often have an obligation to be accessible to the media due to federally funded
research projects. Further, not all sources interviewed are quoted in stories, and
university professors often provide background material that may or may not be used.

A study by Dunwoody and Ryan addresses the question of credible source use
by evaluating the criteria of how science sources are selected. Following the definition
that "the credible scientist is one who communicates within his or her area of research
expertise,"60 Dunwoody and Ryan sought to determine if journalists select sources
based on the source's area of expertise, or if sources are selected regardless that they
are outside of their expertise, in that they are asked questions unrelated to their own
specialties. If the latter is the case, then perhaps journalists use their own criteria for
deciding why a particular source is selected.

That criteria might involve three factors Dunwoody lists in a separate article:
mainstream status, administrative credentials and previous contact with the media.“1
Arguing that sources are selected with those criteria, Dunwoody reasons, "Journalists
are very dependent on their scientific sources and don't want to alienate them by going
to dissident scientists. "62

Ultimately, Dunwoody and Ryan found that scientists surveyed for this study
were also involved in other roles (such as administrative) outside of their respective

disciplines, opening up the possibility that their credibility might have been evaluated

29
on other areas. Even so, the study showed most oftern that scientists as sources were

confined to their research disciplines, but one-third of the time scientists were also
asked about areas completely unrelated to their expertise. This raises the suggestion
that journalists use other criteria in determining who is called as a source. Reasons
given for possible journalistic criteria include the importance of "localizing" a story
even when there is not an expert in the area, a conscious decision to use other sources
or mere negligence by the reporter.

In Shepherd's study of media coverage of marijuana research, the primary
sources (seven out of ten) were administrative officials of government institutions.
Shepherd found that these authorities quoted were administrators "with credentials such
as M.Ds or Ph.Ds involved administratively or tangentially [to the topic] but not
directly conducting related research. "63

Over time, source use can affect the quality of coverage of certain topics. Plein

explains,

The science writer's conceptualization of what constitutes a relevant and
legitimate source can determine not only how long a scientific
controversy endures, but may also affect who joirns in the fray, and in
what capacity.64

Branscomb suggests that it is the journalist's responsibility to identify sources
clearly, and that the reader will determine the source's credibility (on the subject.) In
her article, "Knowing how to Know, " Branscomb is concerned about a knowledge

"gap" between scientific and technological experts and a reading public not always able

30
to understand "the level of erudition and unfathomable language used by the scientific

"literati, "‘5 Branscomb recommends a list of methods for improving scientific
"education." Among them, the importance of:

...Assuring that the sources of scientific assertions, assumptions, and

opinions are clearly identified, enabling their validity and utility to

be evaluated according to the user's trust in the sources.“
Further, Ziman believes that the public is not an idle recipient of science information.
Sources outside of their expertise would be disregarded for other sources more
pertinent to the subject matter. "People do not accept passively the knowledge
presented to tlnem by scientific experts. The credibility of a source depends strongly on
its perceived interests in a particular context. This applies to individual scientists,
scientific institutions, public bodies and private enterprises. "

A review of the literature shows that no study has focused exclusively on media
coverage of biotechnology as portrayed through time in general news magazines,
specifically the top three in circulation, Time, mm and W
Berna. Further, though a few studies have analyzed shorter segments of time, no
study at all has done a comprehensive analysis of articles in a particular media for the
two decades since biotechnology became a research focus and came to the public's
attention through the media.

The Pfund and Hofstadter study analyzed a three-and-a-half year time frame
from 1976 through the first part of 1980, revealing a window of change that was taking

place in the biomedical policy arena with recombinant DNA technology. However,

31
tlnough their study showed that industrial and economic interests were becoming more

prevalent, the newspapers and magazines analyzed also included special interest
business magazines, perhaps contributing additional emphasis on business news.

Susanna Hornig Priest and Talbert conducted the only other study that closely
addresses the biotechnology issue in the media through an analysis of newspaper
articles over a two-year timefiame, and their conclusions also revealed an economic
focus. They also coded the sources of arguments, including agricultural, science,
government, anti-biotechnology activists and unattributed sources, among others, and
the tone of those arguments as positive or negative.

Several studies address source use and the voices that speak for the various
facets of the biotechnology industry. An effort to gauge the sources of statements
would reveal the voices behind topics, and finally, as Plein noted, if various aspects of
the biotechnology industry were "defined by positive terms. "

Further inquiry may also investigate if and how Goodell's three phases of
recombinant DNA coverage in the press from the early 19703 may be revealed in news

magazines.

32

HYPOTHESES

With the preceding literature and ideas in mind, the following hypotheses were
developed to deterrrnine the extent to which three weekly news magazines, Time,

Nemmk. and W published articles about biotechnology
from 1973 through 1994:

1) The number of stories involving biotechnology coverage in the three major news

magazines. __cTim . Scam and WMH increase over time
between 1973 andl994.

2) Of the coded topics encompassing biotechnology research in the news magazine
articles, the economic and medical topics will be emphasized the most.

3) Industrial and educational sources will be the most prevalent in biotechnology stories
in the three magazines between 1973 and 1994.

4) Between 1973 and 1994, stories concerning biotechnology discussed more often the
consequences of biotechnology and its research as beneficial, rather than detrimental to
society.

CHAPTER TWO - NOTES

1- David Warren Burkctt. W.
(Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co., 1965).

2. A3 cited in: Christopher Domarn, "Some Problems in Conceptualizing the

Issue of "Science and the Media. '" Wheaties 7 (March
1990). 49. See also: H. Krieghbaum, W, (New York:
New York University Press, 1967).

3. Ibid.

4. Sharon M. Friedman, "The Journalist' 3 World," chap. in Wang!

W (New Yorlc The Free Press. a Division of
Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 25.

5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 23.

7. James Shannon, "Communications and Medical Research" (University of
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, October 17,1964, 1-90). As cited in David Warren

Burkett. WW. 1965
8. Friedman, Ibid. 24.

9. Ibid.

10. Jon D. Miller, "Reaching the Attentive and Interested Publics for Science, "
chap. in Scientists and Journalists (New York: The Free Press, a Division of
Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 65.

11. Marc Lappe and Patricia Archbold Martin, "The Place of the Public in the
Conduct of Science," Wm 51, 1535. Statement attributed
to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 392, 1969. See also Virginia
State Board of Pharmacy v. Virgina Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. 425 U.S. 748,
765 , 1969.

33

12. Lappe and Martin, Ibid., 1541.

13. Ibid. 1542.

14. LE. Trachtman, "The Public Understanding of Science Effort: A
Critique," WM 36 (Summer): 10.

15. James R. Ferguson, "Scientific Inquiry and the First Amendment,"
Commutation 64. 639.

16. "Lysenko's Legacy," Time, Dec. 6, 1976, 48. See also: Burkett, 37.

17. Burkett, 37.

18. Alexander Morgan Capron, W 51, no.6
(September 1978) 973.

19. "Tinkering with Life," Time, April 18, 1977. 39.

20. Capron, Ibid. 974.

21. "Tirnkering with Life," Time, April 18, 1977. 40.

22. Capron, Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Rae Goodell, "How to Kill a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant
DNA " chap in: W (New York:
The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 173.

25. Capron, Ibid. 974.

26. Ibid. 976.

27. Time, July 29, 1974. 59.

28. W. March 10, 1975. 40.

29. Goodell, Ibid. 175.

30. Ibid.

31.

34

L. Christopher Plein, "Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of

Issue Definition." Wm 16 (Autumn 1991): 475-

35
32. Ibid. 486.

33. Ibid. 474.

34. Nancy Pfund and Laura Hofstadter, "Biomedical Innovation and the
PrcsS." lonmalctflommnnicafian 31 (Spring): 152-

35. Ibid. 141 .

36. Susanna Hornig Priest and Jeffery Talbert, "Mass Media and the Ultimate
Technological Fix: Newspaper Coverage of Biotechnology, " Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal 10, no.1 (1994).

37. Allan Mazur, "Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific
Controversies," W 31 (Spring 1981) 114.

38. Ibid.

39. Among the risk literature, see: Susanna Hornig, "Science Stories: Risk,
Power and Perceived Emphasis, " Journalism Quarterly 67, no.4 (Winter 1990): 767.

40. Priest and Talbert, Ibid. 167-168.

41. Ibid. 168.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Telephone survey conducted by the Wirthlin Group, March 14-16,1994,
as cited in W, "Genetically Engineered Foods,"
4, no.29 (August 5, 1994): 676. x

45. Pfund and Hofstadter, 149.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 142.

48. Ibid.

49. Goodell, 173.

50. "Creating New Forms of Life - Blessing or Curse?" U.S. Emit
W. April 11, 1977, 80-81.

36
51. Goodell, 173.

52. Pfund and Hofstadter, 148.

53. Walter Gieber and Walter Johnson, "The City Hall Beat: A Study of
Reporter and Source Roles," WU! 38, no.3 (Summer, 1961): 289.

54. Ibid., 297.
55. Ibid.

56. Stigma, January 13, 1978, editorial, as cited in "DNA: Scientists' Social
Responsibility," W 124, no.17 (February 14, 1978): 3395.

57. Ibid., 3395.
58. Hornig Priest and Talbert, Ibid., 168.

59. Sharon Dunwoody, "The Scientist as Source," chap. in Wang!

W, (New York. The Free Press, a Division of
Macmillan, Inc., 1986). 5.

60. Sharon Dunwoody and Michael Ryan, "The Credible Scientific Source, "
Icumalismguanerlx. (Spring. 1987): 22-
61. Sharon Dunwoody, "The Scientist as Source," chap. in Scientistsjnd
, (New York. The Free Press, a Division of
Macmillan, Inc., 1986): 7.
62. Ibid.

63. R. Gordon Shepherd, "Selectivity of Sources: Reporting the Marijuana
Controversy," WM, (Spring, 1981): 135.

64. Plein, 148.

65. Anne W. Branscomb, "Knowing How to Know," William
W 6, no.36 (Summer, 1981): 5.

66. Ibid., 9.

CHAPTERTHREE

RESEARCH METHOD

With the preceding hypotheses in mind, a coding instrument including 22
variables and accompanying operational definitions was developed with which to code
each article about biotechnology over the 21-year time period. The coding instrument
is in Appendix A.

The major newsmagazines Time. mm and mm
were selected as the group from which the articles relating to biotechnology would be
coded. The magazines were chosen for their similar content as news magazines, high
circulation rates (listed irn appendix A), and presence in the news media during the
timeframe which would be studied. The medium of magazines ofien ernables more
opportunity for in-depth coverage of a topic on a continuing basis than newspapers,
radio, or television. Further, a number of studies have shown newsmagazines as a
primary source of science news among U.S. readers.l '

The years 1973 through 1994 were chosen in order to most accurately capture
the emergence and evolving discussion of the biotechnology industry. Coverage was
figured by assessing all biotechnology articles during the 20-year time period in the
three magazines as listed in the W. A total of 117 articles

were identified in the Wm under the "keywords" of genes,

37

g 38
genetic research, plant research (and later) plant genetics, genetic engineering, human

engineering and other subcategories such as genetic counseling, that may appear under
the keyword, " genetics. "

To investigate the hypothesis, “The number of articles involving biotechnology-
coverage in the three major news magazines, Time, W and W
W will increase over time between 1973 and 1994, " items were coded based
on the following: (1) the magazine in which the article was published; (2) the length of
each article in square inches; and (3) the month and year of the article's publication.

The second hypothesis explored which particular topic areas, economic,
political, agricultural, medical and/or scientific are mentioned the most in the articles
throughout the 21-year time period, with the assumption that economic and medieal
topics will be emphasized the most. A topic was defined as a significant portion of the
story measuring approximately 20 percent devoted to a particular topic, and each topic
is defined accordingly in Appendix A. As many as five topics or as few as one could
be listed. A measurement for the amount of space devoted to the topic was recorded on
the coding sheet.

Hypothesis three was investigated in an effort to gauge the extent of positive
and negative coverage in the magazines of biotechnology and its research. Given the
writing styles used to report science topics, other types of assertions (not only
beneficial and detrimental) might be made when discussing biotechnology, and so
explanatory neutral and balanced neutral assertions were also coded. For research

purposes here, an assertion is defined as a statement of intent, main point or premise of

39
a source, an argument, quotation or attributed to a statement. An assertion may be

found in one sentence or a series of related sentences that might constitute an entire
paragraph. Thus, with those thoughts in mind, the number of respective assertions in
each of the four categories was counted.

Due to the specialized nature of science fields, and the literature discussing
sources, hypothesis four was investigated to determine the voices behind various
assertions. A source is defined here as the person to whom an assertion is attributed.
A source does not need to ”speak” to be a source, but can be referred to or stated with
agreement to an assertion. Each assertion has a source which, for this study's purposes
may be one of the following: industrial, politieal, agricultural, medieal, educational, a
private citizen or unknown. All sources were coded on the coding sheet.

Inferential statistics will not be used beeause this is a census of a content
population.

An intercoder reliability check of the coding eategories was conducted to test
the reliability of the coding instrument and operational definitions. The intercoder
reliability check involved the coding of 35 articles from the three magazines. All
variables were used in the intercoder reliability check, in which the agreement level
was determined by the number of times the coders’ variables agreed divided by the
number of articles. A goal of 85 percent agreement was established in the proposal.

More than 85 percent agreement was reached by the two coders on all but three
of the questions; one of which was 80 percent agreement and the other two were 83

percent agreement. Variables 1 through 4, 21 and 22 were not measured for reliability

40
beeause they involve identifying the magazine, date and measurement of the article as

well as measuring photos and graphs. Variables 5 and 7 both had 91 percent
agreement, variable 6 had 89 percent, and variables 8, 10 and 11 had 86 percent.
Variables 12, 14 and 15 all had 89 percent.

Variable 9 had 83 percent, which inquired as to the identification and amount of
space devoted to science topics. Coder discussion determined that differences were due
in part to definition and then measurement of a topic that, if a coder wasn’t eareful,
could be misunderstood or categorized under a medical topic. More careful
measurement would be followed, as well as adhering strictly to the respective
definitions of medical and scientific topics. Variable 13 also had 83 percent agreement,
which involved identifying explanatory neutral statements. Again, simple adjustments
were made to the definition. It was somewhat surprising that this variable did not
reach a higher agreement level because the definition seems very clear, but with more
eareful thought, various circumstances within coding the articles necessitated more
examples for the definition and classifying explanatory neutral statements, rather than
just beneficial or detrimental.

Variable 16 achieved 100 percent by default, in the sense that what ean only be
summed up as a “fluke” in the reliability check is the unavailability of data to
determine its reliability. The variable asked the number of times agricultural sources
are quoted, and it was later discovered that only three sources were found in the entire
study and none, by chance, were selected for the random sample. Variables l7 and 18

had 89 percent and 86 percent respectively, with variable 19 achieving 89 percent

41
agreement. Variable 20 had 80 percent agreement, and upon more careful

consideration, adjustments were made in the operational definition to define an
unidentified source or “no source” more clearly. When an assertion of fact is made
without a source or attribution (when it should be attributed to someone) it is
considered to have been made with an unidentified or “no source. ” An anonymous
source may be an “unidentified” source, but sometimes it is not that easy to identify a
statement without a source. Journalists sometimes use information gleaned from many
sources and some of those statements need attribution, but due to oversight or improper
style, attribution isn’t given. Disagreement was due in part to understanding and
applying the definition, the extremely tedious nature of coding this data and also coder
carelessness. Data for variables 21 and 22 were ultimately not included in the final

analysis.

CHAPTERTHREE—NOTES

1. See Donald L. Shaw and Paul Van Nevcl, "Informative Value of Medieal
Science News," My 44 (Autumn, 1967) 548. See Jonathon T.
Rich, 'A Measure of Comprehensiveness in Newsmagazine Science Coverage, "

W1! 58. 1981.

42

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Of the three magazines analyzed for this study, based on percentage and the
number of articles related to biotechnology, W published the most articles with
39.9 percent or 46 articles, MM published 31.6 percent or 37 articles, and Time
eaptured 29.1 percent with 34 articles of the total number published.

Length was also considered in this study and W also had longer articles
with an average length of 56 inches. However, Inn; edged past mm with 43.1
average inches compared to W’s average of 41.7 inches per article. Overall,
articles averaged 47 inches for all articles.

In response to the first hypothesis, which sought to evaluate the extent of
biotechnology coverage in Time, W and W from
1973 through 1994, data showed an increase in the number of articles published each
year, as shown in Figure l.

The second year studied, 1974, featured one article published in Time. As new
discoveries and controversies within this research field developed, more articles were
published with peak coverage occurring in 1980 with 15 articles among the three
magazines. With the exception of 197 8, for which no articles were found, the average

number of articles published each year in the three magazines was 5.6.

43

44
Using the Pearson’s correlation coefficients to correlate the number of articles

with the years, it was discovered that while MW (hereafter
signified by W did increase and published the most articles overall,
Meek slightly decreased coverage and T_ir_n_e’s correlation revealed an even slighter
decrease through time. By correlating the articles, similarity of news values can be
examined. A correlation between the number of related articles per magazine and year
showed that L1 ,3, News had a correlation of .66. Newsweek had a correlation of -. l9,
and Time’s correlation between the article count and year was -.06.

Time and W had a .64 correlation across the 21 years, showing a
similarity in the numbers of stories. W and Em; had a -.03 correlation,
which reveals that they were not correlated at all. W and Wk had a -
.22 correlation, which means that while ELEM increased its stories, mm did
not. Overall, lime and New had similar news values, but We stands

alone.

45

Figure 1: Cumulative number of stories per' year in
TIME, NEWSWEEK, and U. S. News 1974-1994

 

16

14 «-

12 q.

10 .4?-

Number
N

 

 

 

 

 

0.??? ?????fi‘?????????
747576777879808182838485868788899091929394

Year

To the best of this author's ability no articles were found for the year 1978, in
lime, mm, and M. In the Pfund and Hofstadter study six articles were
found for 1978, but it is most likely that they are from the other eight magazines they
used as sources.1 One reason for the lack of coverage during 1978 could be that the
initial safety controversy about biotechnology research appeared to have subsided; the

lobbying efforts begun in 1977 against restrictive legislation of recombinant DNA

46
research had seemed to pay off as Senator Ted Kennedy withdrew his support from his

bill that would have imposed strong regulations for the research. ”Nothing reached the
Senate floor by the end of 1977, and in 1978 the same process was repeated on a
smaller scale with weaker bills. '2

Signaled by a few key events, a meteoric rise in coverage occurred in 1980. In
June the Supreme Court ruled that new life forms developed in the laboratory could be
patented:

The decision, climaxing an eight-year legal battle, should give a boost
to an emerging industry, genetic engineering, which seeks to create new
life forms. This promising field offers the prospect of advances in
everything from medicine and food production to alternate energy
forms. The court's ruling also revived fears - vastly exaggerated in the
opinion of most responsible scientists -- about the dangers of tampering
with life.’

In October of the same year, three immunologists' working independently won
the Nobel in Medicine for gene research, and a U.C.L.A. Hematologist used genetic
engineering techniques for the first time on humans.

lime and mm consistently follow the other with only a few lapses in
coverage, as illustrated in Figure 2. No articles related to this study appeared in lime
in 1975, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1983 when W began its climb toward its peak
coverage in 1986. Iime also did not have any related articles in 1988. mm did

not have any related articles in 1985, 1990 and 1991.

47

Figure 2: Number of articles in TIME, NEWSWEEK, and U.S. NEWS 1974-

 

 

 

 

 

 

: l
5,: ‘W
ORA” lji A’ARM Al .

 

[-O-TIME +NEWSWEEK +0.3. NEws]

 

To the reading public, perhaps 1985 may be thought of as the year that genetic
engineering beeame noticeable in two diverse spectrums: medical and agricultural
applications. With the exception of mm, which did not have any related articles
that year, the other magazines appeared to be in the thick of their coverage. In
September, a government advisory panel approved national guidelines for gene therapy
- the treatment of inherited diseases by replacing or altering abnormal genes.‘ In

November, the EPA approved an outdoor experiment by Advanced Genetic Sciences, a

48
California biotechnology company, to use a bacteria that had been genetieally altered to

fight frost. It was the first time a man-made organism was approved to be released into
the open air and to occur in February, 1986.5 However, 1986 found all three
magazines reporting about the issue when the EPA suspended Advanced Genetic
Sciences' permit to conduct the research.

Coverage in lime and W rose again in '90, perhaps buoyed by the
news that the Human Genome Project, an estimated $3 billion effort to map the entire
gene by 2001, had begun. 1990 also heralded the first recipient of gene therapy, a
four-year-old girl with a rare genetic immune disorder. W coverage breaks
again between 1990 and 1991, and W drops coverage in 1992.

The second hypothesis inquired as to which topics involving biotechnology were
emphasized the most in the articles. Up to five topics - economic, political,
agricultural, medical and scientific - could be listed per article. The most prevalent
topic was scientific, with 55 articles. Forty articles featured biotechnology as a
medieally-related topic, and 32 articles involved biotechnology as a political topic.
Twenty-one articles were economically related, with only 14 articles involving
agriculture as a topic.

The third hypothesis suggests that industrial and educational sources would be
the most prevalent through time. Of the 117 articles coded in the study, 80 stories
featured educational sources. The next highest were politieal sources in 64 articles.
Industrial sources were given attribution in 49 articles, and 48 articles had medieal

sources. Forty-two articles had one or more statements without attribution. Private

49
citizen sources were attributed in 36 articles, and there were only three articles with

agricultural sources in the entire study. However, there were 14 stories with
agricultural topics, revealing that sources other than agricultural sources were used to

discuss agricultural topics.

Table 1: Average number of sources per story
with a given topic

Sources *

0pic Ind. Pol. Agric. Med. Educ. Priv. None
N!!!
Economical) 5.6 1.1 0 0.9 2.4 0.5 1.1
Political (32) 1.8 2.7 0.03 0.7 2.3 0.9 0.7
Agricultural(14) 4.4 2.1 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.5 0.6
Medical (40) 1.4 0.8 0 3.6 1.7 0.6 0.8
Scientific (55) 1.4 1.5 0.02 0.8 ' 3.4 0.6 0.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* ( ) indieates the number of articles per topic

Table 1 shows the disparity betwoensource use for the topics analyzed for this
study. I Within topics, by far the greatest average overall is 5.6 industrial sources per
each of the 21 articles with economic topics. Thenext highest is an average of 4.4
industrial sources for each of the 14 articles that have agricultural topics. Educational
sources had the highest percentage within stories with agricultural topics, having
spoken an average of 2.6 times per each article. The lowest averages are with
agricultural sources which rank zero in the medical and economic categories. “Private

citizen'I and "no source“ categories are the next lowest.

50
The fourth hypothesis explored whether the overall emphasis of the articles,

collectively, is beneficial or detrimental. Fifty-one percent of the articles were coded

as having a beneficial emphasis, with forty—two percent having a detrimental emphasis.
In an effort to gauge the voices behind various assertions and the topics for

which they spoke, the sources were coded for beneficial, detrimental, balanced-neutral

or explanatory statements, as shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2: Average number and percentages of assertions made

 

per topic
Topics
Topic Econ. Pol. Agric. Med. Scien. Total
N * 21 32 14 40 55

 

Beneficial 5.0 2.2 5.6 3.8 3.1 19.7
53% 32% 54% 39% 34% 43%
Detrimental 0.6 2.0 0.9 0.9 1.6 6.0
‘ 6% 28% 9% 9% 17% 14%
Balanced 0.3 0.9 1.4 0.8 0.8 4.2
3% 13% 14% 8% 9% 9%
Explanatory 3.6 1.9 2.4 4.2 3.7 15.8
38% 27% 23% 44% 40% 34%
Overall 9.5 7.0 10.3 9.7 9.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* number of articles per topic

Articles with agricultural topics had the highest percentage and number of
beneficial assertions with an average of 5.6 per article or 54 percent, as shown in Table

2. Articles with economic topics ranked a close second with an average of 5 beneficial

5 1
assertions or 53 percent. The highest number of detrimental assertions was found in

articles with political topics, and they had an average of two per article or 28 percent
being detrimental. Articles with scientific topics had the next highest number of
detrimental assertions with an average of 1.6 or 17 percent. Agricultural topics also
had the most balanced-neutral assertions with an average of 1.4 per article, and with
the exception of economic which had the lowest number of balanced assertions,
political, medical and scientific were very close with an average of just less than one
per article. Articles with medical topics had the most explanatory assertions with an
average of 4.2 per article or 44 percent, and scientific and economic each follow with

an average of 3.7 and 3.6 respectively.

Table 3: Average number and percentages of assertions made by

 

 

 

 

 

 

sources
Sources
Topic Ind. Pol. Agric. Med. Educ. Priv. None Total
N * 49 64 3 48 80 36 42
Beneficial 4.5 3.0 6.7 3.5 3.1 3.9 4.2 28.9
42% 34% 48% 35% 35% 37% 39% 39%
Detrimental 1.4 1.7 3.3 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.3 12.2
13% 19% 24% 14% 15% 17% 12% 16%
Balanced 1.0 0.9 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 8.0
9% 10% 21% 8% 9% 7% 6% 11%
Explanatory 3.9 3.2 1.0 4.3 3.6 4.2 4.7 24.9
36% 37% 7% 43% 41% 39% 43% 34%
Overall 10.8 8.8 14.0 10.0 8.8 10.7 10.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The number of sources

 

52
Table 3 shows the average number and percentages of assertions made by

sources. The highest number of beneficial assertions were made by agricultural sources
with an average of 6.7 per article, with 48 percent of agricultural assertions as
beneficial. The lowest number was made by politieal sources with an average of three
per article. Agricultural sources also had the highest number of detrimental sources
with 3.3 and thus, 24 percent detrimental, and the highest balanced neutral statements
with an average of 3. “No source” attribution made the highest number of explanatory
statements, with an average of 4.7 per article or 43 percent. Agricultural sources had
the lowest number of explanatory statements with an average of one per article.
Overall, no source attribution had the highest number of assertions with 10.9, closely
followed by private citizen and industrial with 10.7 and 10.8.

Given the varying numbers of sources, their statements were also figured by
percentages. Agricultural sources had the highest percentage of beneficial assertions in
the study with 48 percent. Political sources had the lowest of beneficial assertions with
only 34 percent, closely followed by medical and educational sources. Agricultural and
political sources were closely aligned with the highest percentage of detrimental
assertions, with 24 percent and 19 percent respectively. Agricultural sources had the
most balanced neutral assertions with 21 percent. Medical and no source assertions
both had the most explanatory statements with 43 percent each

Table 4 illustrates the beneficial and detrimental assertions made cumulatively
(in percentages) between the three magazines from the first available article for the

study in 1974 through 1994. Concurring with Goodell’s research that the scientific

 

53
community began lobbying for minimal legislative research restrictions in the mid-’70s

and the general growth of biotechnology industries, beneficial assertions made in the
three magazines seem to correlate with the changing tide in the public sector. Table 4
shows that the shift occurred from 1976 to 1977 and with the exception of 1978, is
most clearly revealed by 1979. Balanced neutral and explanatory assertions (combined
here to be “non-judgmental”) reveal a surprisingly steady presence throughout the

entire two decades.

Table 4: Percentages of beneficial, detrimental and non-judgmental assertions
made in TIME, NEWSWEEK, and U.S. NEWS, 1974-1994

 

Year 747576777879 80 81 82 838485 868788899091929394Ave

 

Beneficial 0 17 24 31 0 53 44 50 39 48 61 35 13 40 40 26 l9 19 46 23 35

60
Detrimental 83292928 01012 4 01318 3182111251213 9 610I17
4o

 

 

 

Non- 175447410374446 48343647664935626872486748
'ud mental
Number 12770315934677655643795.6
Articles/yr

 

Number 6 17 62 79 0 191118617 6146 54 33 38 23 51513719 5181 45
Assert./yr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR -- NOTES

1. Nancy Pfund and Laura Hofstadter, “Biomedical Innovation and the Press, "
WM 31 (Spring. 1981): 143-

2. Rae Goodell, ”How to Kill a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant
DNA,’ chap. in: ci n' rn i ° 'n i n (New York:
The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 174.

3. ”Test Tube Life: Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.," Time, June 30, 1980, 52.
See also: ”The Right to Patent Life,” MM, June 30, 1980, 74.

4. “Genes,” WW, Nov. 11, 1985. 56.

5. ”Fresh from the Labs, a Farming Revolution,” W
Report, Nov. 25, 1985, 74.

54

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

As a relatively new field of scientific research, biotechnology is a relevant point of
departure for analyzing the evolution of a scientific topic in the media. A content analysis
provides the opportunity to analyze data through time, and given the emergence of
biotechnology research in the early 1970s and its potential impact on society, this study
soughttodiscovertheaccuracyoffourhypothesesdrawn fromreadingpreviousresearch
data and literature.

Aswasstatedatthebeginning ofthis study, theobjectiveherehasbeentoassessthe
oovomgo of biotechnology in ill—m, mm and W Mellon
the 21-year time period from 1973 through 1994. No previous study has measured the
coverage ofbiotechnology in the top three news magazines specifieally, and given the
opportunity for more in-depth reporting than other media, news magazines provide another
forum for gauging how much information on biotechnology has been available to the public
as well as assessing the prevalence of related biotechnology topics and sources.

It was expected that as a newly developing issue in the scientific and public arenas.
coverage in the three news magazines would increase steadily through time. However. it

was discovered that while W did increase and published the most articles overall,

55

56
Emma]: slightly decreased coverage and Time's correlation revealed an even slighter

decreasethrough time. Itnraybeconcluded tlratthenumberofstorieswasirregularand
thetrendwasonly foranincreaseinLLSJSm.

The finding that scientific and medical topics were more prevalent than economic
topics did not fully support the second hypothesis. Given the previous literature data, it was
assumed that economic topics would be featured more often. Fifty-five scientific topic
articles were coded, compared to 21 economic topic articles. Medical topics were coded in
forty articles.

However, as might be assumed, industrial sources spoke more often in articles with
economic topicsthananyothertopic. Butthatisnotthecasewitlragriculture. Perhapsone
ofthemostintriguing findingsofthisstudywasthatonlythreearticleswerecodedtohave
agriculture sources but there are 14 articles with agriculture topics, revealing that sources
otherthanagriculturalwereusedtodiscussagriculturaltopics. Thisisconsisterrtwitlr
Dunwoody’s study about sources.

'lhepercentageofvariousaswrtions rrradeby sourcesrevealed thatindustrial
sourcesmadealmosttentimesmorebeneficialassertionsflranpolifical sources. Industrial
sourcesarealsoalmostterrtimes morelikelytomakebeneficialasserfionsthandetrimental
assertions.

This gap between beneficial and detrimental assertions (with just one balanced-
rreutral assertion) nrade by industrial sources, supports Plein's argument that the biotech

industry was influenced by interests dedicated to defining biotech in ”positive terms” for

57
commercialdevelopment.l HorrrigPriestandTalbertalsofound that'irrdustrialsources

might be responsible for creating an economic agenda. '2

It was also found that "no sources“ made 39 percent beneficial assertions, and in
turn, 12 percent detrimental assertions. It may be considered that “no source' statements
are the reporter's thoughts and efforts to explain during the writing process, when the
statement could or should have been supported with attribution by another source. Thus, if
incertaincasesthereporterwasspeaking tluougha "no source” assertion, thisfinding
would, in part, support the Gieber and Johnson study which discovered that a dependency
can evolve between reporters and sources, and ultimately, an assimilation of source values.

This may also be evident with the consistent voices of other sources, but that is not as
clearly identified at this tirrre.

To link ”no source” attribution to the high prevalence of economic topics is
reasonable, but not a strong possibility here. Table 1 reveals that “no sources" (signified by
'none") spoke an average of 1.1 times (as did political) as a source for economic topics,
behind industrial and educational sources.

Educafimalsoureesalsohadahighpereurtageofbareficialasserfimmwiflr35
percent, just behind private, no source and industrial sources. Though still not the highest,
this finding may also show a relation to Hornig Priest's and Talbert's study of
biotechnology articles in newspapers that found university sources to account for ”28.8
percent of the positive arguments and 11.7 percent of the negative argurrrerrts."3 Hornig
PriestandTalbertsaythatonereasonforuniversity (or, asdefinedinthisstudy,

'educadonal,')wmcesmspeakmposifivewrmsisdmtmeummfiesmdreseamh

58
institutions would have interest in promoting biotechnology because its research is

expensive, as compared to ”industrial developers who bear the costs. '4

This study also shows itself to be consistent with past research discussing the overall
treatment of science in the media and lends further validity to studies examining the more
positive language used by the press in covering science issues. In his unpublished thesis,
“The Comparison of the W. W. Science’s and
Nature’s Coverage of the Birth of Modern Atomic Theory: 1896-1922,” Erik Iarson
found that overall coverage was primarily neutral and positive for all of the publications,
but that skepticism was still present from the beginning.‘ Larson combined the methods of
previous researchers who studied media and science effects: Weart, who assessed
headlines and irrrages, and Claudill, who analyzed the pattern of coverage over time,‘ to
conduct a content analysis. Larson found that articles were not quite as positive as
conclusionsdrawnbyWeart, perhapsinpartbecauseWeartexamined onlyheadlinesarrd
Larson coded entire articles. Weart followed early perceptions of press coverage of the
nuclear issue from the turn of the century. Weart found “very little negative language from
1900 to the middle 19203, and almost three quarters of the titles from 1900-1940 were
neutral with the majority of the rest being hopeful. "7

This study echoes Larson’s findings by revealing that as time progressed, assertions
nraintained relatively steady non-judgmental (balanced neutral and explanatory) assertions.
In the early 1970s, coverage showed more detrimental assertions, posslbly due to
skepticism, but by 1979 had leaned to more positive and non-judgmental coverage,
revealing some semblance of journalistic objectivity that carried through into the 1980s and

59
1990s. Goodell’sclaimdrataneaflyslufioccunedwidrflrehufialconmversytooflrer

avenues such as the benefits of industry around 1977 and 1979 to the present is also
supported, in part by this study.

These data clearly reveal the continued presence of biotechnology in the top news
rrragazines and its widespread facets of industry, medical and other applications that are of
importance in today’s society. Further study may inquire as to the continued prevalence of
documented industrial and economic interests, as well as other topics and sources used
throughout the entire twenty-year time period.

Ifflrereisonepmficularareadratshorfldbeemphasizedinflrisanalysis, itistlreuse
and apparent absence of various sources. That biotechnology's early beginnings are meted
in agricultural practices that continue to this day, but seem to be overshadowed by industrial
and medicalintereststotlrepointtlratsourcesoutsideofagricultureareusedtodiscuss
agricultural topics, is an area that should be explored fruther. Perhaps those stories coded
in this study that involve agriculture are written by journalists who do not have the large
sourcebaseflomwhichtodrawagricultural sources. But, thosesourcescanbefound.

Reliabilityofsources rrrayalsobeafactorintlreiruse. Asinotherareasofscience,
reliable sources are sometimes difficult to find. When they are, as Gieber and Johnson
discovered, sourcevalues nraybeassimilatedbetweerrtlresourceandthereporter. Perhaps
dratisalsombeconsideredmdfissnldyudflrdrehighprevalarceof'nosoume' arrdother
sources' assertions. The author ofthis study, as well as the outside coder, both commented
dufingflremdingpmcessdmtmesamesoumeswereusedagainandagainflrmughdre

years. Furflrer,jomnafistsappomtedmflresdarcemmedicalbeatmanafionalmgazine

60
mayholdthepositionforafewyearsormore—longenoughtoestablisha”reliable”

sourcebasefromwhichtodraw foranarticle.

Ithasbeenshowntluoughthissmdyandpreviousodrersmdiesofmedia, that
biotechnology has evolved in multi-faceted capacities since the early 19703, leaving its mark
in various industries and changing as new developments arise. Consistent with other
research, coverage of biotechnology has been more positive than negative. Although a
notablearnountofcoveragehasaimedatexplaining, tlrepagesofnewsmagazineshavenot
provided as balanced an image of negative as positive. The average number of detrimental
assertionsinthelast 15 yearswas 10.4. Overtime, too, thereseemstohavebeenamove
back to the “center” of biases; perhaps some of the differences may reflect the traditional
hard news coverage by newspapers, compared to the more in-depth coverage featured by
magazines.

Efiklarsonfoundflratnegafivecoverageofradiumincreasedastimewentby, due
toincreasing evidenceofdiseaseandcancerfromthemisuseofradium. Conversely, this
researchsuggestsadecreaseinnegativecoverageovertime. Perhapsthisisdue, inpart, as
Priest and Talbert suggest in their study’s title, to society’s search for the “ultimate
teclmological fix.” Biotechnology may be seen as the arena in which food shortages might
besolvedanddiseases rrrightbecured. Theadvantageofaeonmrltarralysisisto seethese
changes or shifts through time, at different stages in time. In the early 19703,
biotechnological research developments were progressing perhaps more quickly than
anyone, including scientists, realized. Suddenly too, the implications of both good and evil

weretobeconsidered,asevidencedbyboththeremrchers’andgovernment’seoncernfor

61
application of biotechnology. For various reasons, biotechnology was met initially with

skepticism; some previous science discoveries had not necessarily provided the “fix” to
problems. It was an arena virtually unknown to the public.

But, as has been shown, the early skepticism dinrinished; a shift to more positive .
coverage occurred around the same time that the patenting of various biotechnology
applications was approved. As a natural next step for scientific research, the application of
discovery, industrial interest in biotechnology grew. As previous studies also show, there
was a strong growth in commercial application, and industries involved with biotechnology
would have interest in maintaining and supporting a more positive image of biotechnology.

This study also supports findings that industrial sources were more prevalent than other
sources, and more likely to make beneficial statements regarding biotechnology.

As a channel of communication, magazines by nature provide an in-depth
perspective of issues that are more complex or often misunderstood by society. How this
informationisrelatedisvitaltoitsunderstanding andacceptanceordismissalofitspresence
in the marketplace. Biotechnology's broad reach affects the public in various roles, as a
potentialkeytomedicalissuesandimproved foodproductsandproductivity, amongothers.

The availability of this information and its application is of invaluable importance to public
knowledge and confidence, as well as to those voices speaking and those sending the
messages. The question of the media’s role in the biotechnology debate has now been
more completely answered by its broad presence in various media, significantly the news

www.mmandllmmmamn

CHAPTERFIVE—NOTES

1. L. Christopher Plein, ”Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of Issue
Definition." WWW 16. (Autumn. 1991): 486-

2. Susanna Hornig Priest and Jeffery Talbert, “Mass Media and the Ultimate
Technological Fix: Newspaper Coverage of Biotechnology,” mm

W 10. 110-1 (1994): 81-

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., 83.

5. Erik Sean Larson, “Comparison of the W', W
Men's, Sam's and Nature's Coverage of the Birth of Modern Atomic Theory:
1896-1922,” (Unpublished Masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1992): 35.

6. Ibid., as cited in Ed Claudill, “A Content Analysis of Press Views of
Darwin’s Evolution Theory, 1860-1925," MW 64 (W’mter, 1987):
784.

7. Ibid., as cited in Spencer R. Weart, W, (Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1988): 3-13.

62

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CONTENT ANALYSIS CODING PROTOCOL

Magazines selected forthis study wereTime, NEW. andW
Report. A content analysis of these sources will be conducted to determine the extent of
biotechnological coverage including its various topics, discoveries and voices throughout a
21-year time period.

Because the field of biotechnology is one that spans several disciplines, it is
necessary to know that “biotechnology” encompasses the keywords: genes, genetic
research, plant research, plant genetics, genetic engineering, human engineering and other
subcategories such as genetic counseling that may appear under the keyword, “genetics.”

Articleswillbestudiedand measuredintheirentirety, including anyphotogtaphS,
charts, diagrams or graphs. Excluded would be any paid advertisement (topically related or

not)thatrrrayappearonthesamepageasthearticle.

CODING PROCEDURE

1. ReecrdthenumberofthearticleCmthcupperlefteomer)onthecodingsheet.

2. Which magazine is the article from?
1. =Iilne
2. enigma]:
3. =usmmmtlsmon

63

64
3. Recordthemonthandyearofthemagazineusing number-301 - 12, suchasJanuary =
01, February = 02, etc. Theyears would berecordedaccordingly, suchas1973 = 73,
1979 = 79, etc.
4. Measure the length of the article in square inches, from the beginning oftlre type at the
left margin to the widest point at the right margin. Measure lead paragraphs. Then
measure from the top of the first capital letter at the story beginning (including lead
paragraphs) to the lowest descender below the bottom line. (Exclude the title.) Multiply
each width section by each length section and add the products together for the final figure.

Carry measurements to the 1/2 inch when measuring articles. Translate into decimals and
use decimals on the coding sheet, for example: 1/2 = .50.

Unit of analysis: the topic(s) of an article

There may be more than one identified topic of discussion for each article. A topic
(for purposes here) may be defined as a significant portion of the story measuring at least
20pememdemtedto apam'culartopic. Foreach topic listed, acorrelating measurement
will be recorded on the coding sheet. The topics are economic, political, agricultural,
medical and scientific. Thus, an article may have as many as five topics discussed or as
fewasone; ineithercase, thenumbers wouldberecordedonthecoding sheet. Ifatopicis
discussed, measure the (area) amount ofspacein inches devoted to the topic. Ifatopicis

notdiscussed,mark00nthecodingsheet.

mm: any aspect of a discussion that involves finances, monetary potential,
investment, capital, costs.

291mm: mentions government involvement with the biotechnology industry and
any related persons, policy, laws, patents, regulations or agencies, such as the
FDA, USDA, etc.

65
W: affiliated with agriculture; any mention of farming; may refer to a
scientist or researcher specializing in the application of biotechnology to agriculture
or developing a better commodity through biotechnology - such as a higher protein
soybean, etc.

medial: affiliatedwith medicine; may refertoamedical doctororresearcher
specializing in the application of biotechnology to medicine; mention of hospitals
or medicine; mention of health-related societies such as the American Cancer
Society.

seielltifie: mentions the word “science” with reference to biotechnology’s
irrrportance and/or foundation in the broad spectrum of scientific research.

5. This article is primarily but not exclusively about biotechnology and 20 percent is
devoted to the economic topic:

a) If yes, record number of inches of space for topic

b) 0 = no

6. Thisarticle’stopicispolitical:
a) Ifyes,recordnumberofinches ofspacefortopic
b) 0=no

7. Thisarticle’stopicisagricultural:
a) Ifyes,recordnumberofinchesofspacefortopic
b) 0=no

8. Thisarticle’stopicismedical:
a) If yes, record number of inches of space for topic
b) 0=no

9. Thisarticle’stopicisscierrtific:
a) Ifyes,recordnumberofinchesofspacefortopic
b) 0=no

Unit of analysis: the assertion(s) of an article

Those statements referring to biotechnology as beneficial, or detrimaltal are

assertions. Sonre statements may assert beneficial and detrimental aspects within the same

66
sentence or related sentences or paragraph, and include a “but” or an “or,” implying

neutrality. Some statements may be explanatory, defining or discussing biotechnology, and
also be considered neutral.

There may be several assertions of either classification, beneficial or detrimental, or
there may be none and statements would be neither beneficial nor detrimental but
“neutral.” When the coder is in doubt, it may be marked “neutral.” In any case, the

assertions would be tallied and noted on the coding sheet.

assertion: astaternartofintartmainpointorprerniseofasomcemnargument,
quotationorattributedtoastatement. Anassertionmaybefoundinone
sentenceoraseries ofrclated senterrcestlratrrrightconstituteanerrtire

paragraph-

Forexample, “IbelievethatDNAresearchisvitaltothefuturehealthof
society,” the doctor said.

M: good, can bring positive results, such as cures for disease, birth defects
or further knowledge; listing positive aspects of research applications.

For example, “Biotechnology research can increase the world’s food
Simply. ”

denim: bad, disadvantage, can cause harm; such as risks to people’s health or
nature, raising people’s fears, development of a potentially dangerous virus
or listing negative aspects of research.

For example, “Genetically engineered food could cause allergic reactions
in sonre people.”

119413312 assertions presented objectively; a statement that is neither positive nor
negative. For purposes here, there are two types of neutral assertions,
balanced and explanatory. A balanced neutral assertion mentions benefits
and detriments of any research equally within the same sentence or group
of related sentences by the attributed source. An explanatory assertion
explains or defines biotechnology.

67
For example, a balanced neutral assertion may be: “New technology
arablesustoimproveonnature. Howfarshouldwego ” Theassertion
isneitherpositivenornegative, becauseitdoesnotstatewhether
“improving on nature” is good or bad, but alludes that there is a possibility
of taking the new technology too far. An explanatory neutral assertion
may be: “Biotechnology involves the process of creating new life forms
from other life forms. ”

Count (or tally) the number of assertions (argument statements) that are beneficial,
detrimental and neutral as related to biotechnology. (Regardless if the article discusses
another topic also, only count those assertions regarding biotechnology.) There are two
neutraltypesofstatementstobecounted: abalancedtypeincludesbothbeneficialand
detrimental aspects of biotechnology, and may (or may not -- see example above) include a
“but” or an “or” within the same sentence or group of sentences stated or attributed to a
source. The other, an explanatory neutral statement is simply explanatory or defines

biotechnology.

10. Record the number of beneficial assertions in the appropriate column.
11. Record the. number of detrimental assertions.

12. Record thebalancedneutral statementsthatincludebeneficialanddetrirnentalaspccts
attributed to (or stated by) a source.

13. Record the explanatory neutral statements.

68

Unit of analysis: the assertions of a source

Each assertion has a source which may be one of the following: industrial,
political, agricultural, medical, educational, private citizen or unknown. The respective
definitions may be referred to as ofien as necessary. An article may have up to seven types
ofsourcesorasfewasone, andtheywouldbenotedonthecodingsheet. Sourcesmaybe
quoted directly, signified by quotation marks, or indirectly through paraphrasing. Thus, a
source does not need to “speak,” to be a source. For example: “A General Electric

researcher has already...” with the GE researcher being the (industrial) source attribution.

agrimlmml: affiliatedwithagriculhrre: any mentionoffarming; mayrefertoa
scientist or researcher specializing in the application of biotechnology to
agriculture or developing a better commodity through biotechnology -
such as a higher protein soybean, etc.

industrial: affiliated with corporations, companies orbusinesses thathaveavested
interest in biotechnology and its production, such as Monsanto and Archer-
Daniels Midland. Not to be confused with the term “biotechnology
industry,” which is the term referring to biotechnology and its many
applications. For clarification, a source who may be affiliated with a
university tangentially, but who has started his/her own company and is
speaking as a representative ofthat company is an industrial source.

mm: affiliated with a university, college or directly related to a mentioned
educational institution or field; a student studying the field may be
considered an “educated source,” therefore, “educational source” would
be listed.

9911M! affiliated with the government, or mentions involvement with the
biotechnology industry and any related policy, laws, patents, regulations or
agencies such as the FDA, USDA, etc. The Pope would be considered a
political sourcebecauseheisaheadofstate.

69

mm: apersonnotaffiliatedwiththeabovesources, andmaybe
identified directly by name or other profession. “Susan Peterson, a
student,” couldbelistedasaprivatecitizen sourceifheropinionwas
askedandshewasnotidentifiedasbeingastudentofrelatedresearch.
However, a “Susan Peterson, a microbiology student studying DNA
structure, ” would be an educational source.

A private citizen may also be plural, such as “Unruly opponents
chanted...” (Opponents are private.)
Mal: affiliated with medicine; may refer to a medical doctor or researcher
specializing in the application of biotechnology to medicine; mention
of hospitals or medicine; mention of health-related societies such as the
American Cancer Society. A geneticist is a medical source.
W3 an assertion offact or personal statement with no source given
or identified at all. A statement by an anonymous source is considered to
be made by an “unidentifi ” or “no source.” Sometimes statements are

made by the reporter or gleaned from sources that should be identified.
These statements would be considered “no source” statements.

14. Recordthenumberoftimestypesofsources forthisarticlespeakwhoareprimarily
involved in biotechnology through industrial affiliation. (May have more than one
“industrial” source for each article.)

15. Record the number of times political sources are quoted:

16. Record the number of times agricultural sources are quoted:

17. Record the number of times medial sources are quoted:

18. Record the number of times educational sources are quoted:

19. Record the number of times private citizens serve as sources:

20. Record the number of unidentified sources used:

21. Count and measure the photos in the article. Denote the number of photos on the
coding sheet and measure the photos to the nearest halfinch, such as 1.5.

70

22. Count and measure the number of graphs used in the article. Denote the number and
measurement to the nearest halfinch, such as 1.5.

APPENDIX B

Table 5: Circulation Figures for various years from 1973 - 1994*

New 11m: 11m
1973 2,642,820 4,339,516 1,941,229
1980 2,934,1XJ83 4,314,279 2,067,321
1990 3,288,453 4,393,237 2,351,313
1994 3,240,131 4,203,991 not avail.

 

*1973-1990(widrdreexcepfimof1L§._Nm)figmesamfiomdeakaeaoryof
PublicatiomandBmadcauMedia.

Ws l990figureaswellasthefiguresfor1994arefrom Uln'ch’s
IntemationalPeriodicalDitcctory.

71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Branscomb, Anne W. “Knowing How to Know,“ W
W 6, no.36 (Summer, 1981).

Burkett. David Warren. W
(Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co., 1965).

Capron, Alexander Morgan. SW 51. no.6
(September, 1978): 973.

Claudill, Ed. ’A Content Analysis of Press Views of Darwin's Evolution
theory. 18604925.- W 64 (Mater. 1987): 784.

QhfisfianSeienreMQnitnr. Feb. 12. 1980-

Wm. 'Genetienll)’ Engineered FeedS"
4, no.29 (August 5, 1994).

W 124. no.17 (February 14. 1978)-

Dornan, Christopher. ”Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of

'Scienee and the Media. "' MW 7 (March.
1990).

Dunwoody, Sharon. ”The Scientist as Source,“ chap. in W
W (New York: The Free Press, a Division of
Macmillan, Inc. 1986).

Dunwoody, Sharon and Michael Ryan. "The Credible Scientific Source, "
MW (Spring. 1987)

Ferguson, James R. “Scientific Inquiry and the First Amendment,’I Cornelia}!
Km 64, 639-665.

Em, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. 12, no.1 (spring, 1994).

72

73

Friedman, Sharon M. "The Journalist’s Wo,"r1d chap. in smumm
(New York: The Free Press,a

Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 25.

Gieber, Walter and Walter Johnson. "The City Hall Beat: A Study of Reporter and
Source Roles," MW 38, no.3 (Summer, 1961).

Goodell, Rae. "How to Kill a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant DNA," chap.
' ien i nd rn li ' e in i n (New York:
The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1986).

Krieghbaum, H. Seience and the Mass Media, (New York: New York University
Press, 1967).

Lappe, Marc and Patricia Archbold Martin. "The Place of the Public in the Conduct
of Science," Seethern (zelifernie Q1; Review 51, 1536.

Larson. En'k Sean- 'Comparison of the W3 W's
Scjeeee’s and Nature's Coverage of the Birth of Modern Atomic Theory:
1896-1922," (Unpublished Masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1992).

Mazur, Allan. "Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies, "
o f m ' ' n 31 (Spring 1981) 106.

Miller, Jon D. "Reaching the Attentive and Interested Publics for Science," chap. in

Seientiets Ed Jeerneligte; Re epegjn g Sei regee as He em (New York: The Free

Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1986): 65.

National Institutes of Health, Final Environmental Impact Statement on NIH
Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, June 23,
1976 (October 1976) 1 at V.

W, March 10, 1975.

Pfund, Nancy and Laura Hofstadter. "Biomedical Innovation and the Press," letting!
cfsmnmunieatinn 31. (Spring 1981)-

Plein, L. Christopher. "Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of Issue

Definition," Seienee, Ieehnelegy ,3; Human yelees 16, (Autumn 1991).

Priest, Susanna Hornig and Jeffery Talbert. "Mass media and the ultimate
technological fix: Newspaper coverage of Biotechnology," W

Cemmunieetien Jeumal 10, no. 1 (1994).

Rich, Jonathon T. "A Measure of Comprehensiveness in Newsmagazine Science

Coverage." Wm 58 (1981).

74

Selena, January 13, 1978.

Shannon, James. "Communications and Medical Research," (University of
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, October 17,1964, 1-90). As cited in David

Warren Burkett, WW. 1965

Shaw, Donald L. and Paul Van Nevel, "Informative Value of Medical and Science
News," leumafiamguaneflu 44, (Autumn 1967) 548.

Time. July 29, 1974. 59.
I'me, Dec. 6, 1976. 48.
Time, April 18, 1977. 39.

Trachtman, L.E. "The Public Understanding of Science Effort: A Critique,"
Seieng, flfieehnolegy a; fiumau Values 36, (Summer.)

Weart, Spencer R. Nucleaafieag (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988):
3—13.