In December 2006, the Australian Parliament liberalized regulation governing stem cell research. This decision and preceding legislative review generated considerable public debate, which centred on objections to the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes. This paper draws on qualitative research conducted on the public debate surrounding this policy episode. The aim of this research was to examine how science and scientific knowledge are mobilized by participants in these debates to support their arguments. Data were collected from 109 newspaper opinion editorials as well as 23 in-depth interviews and examined using qualitative content and thematic analysis. Results of this analysis depict science as a rhetorical, moral and political resource that provides opportunities for participants to gain legitimacy, negotiate meaning and assert authority in the public domain. The mobilization of science in public discourse is discussed along with suggestions that are aimed at encouraging greater transparency and inclusiveness in public debates around contested science and emergent technologies.
AnkenyR.DoddsS. (2008) “Hearing Community Voices: Public Engagement in Australian Human Embryo Research Policy, 2005–2007,” New Genetics and Society27(3): 217–32.
2.
AtkinsonD. (1999) Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
BanchoffT. (2005) “Path Dependence and Value-driven Issues: The Comparative Politics of Stem Cell Research,” World Politics57(2): 200–30.
4.
BazermanC. (1997) “Reporting the Experiment: The Changing Account of Scientific Doings in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665–1800,” in HarrisR. A. (ed.) Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, pp. 169–86. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.
5.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn.New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CallahanD. (2003) What Price Better Health? Hazards of the Research Imperative. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
CareyC. (1996) “Rhetorical Means of Persuasion,” in RortyA. (ed.) Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, pp. 399–415. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Commonwealth of Australia (2002a) Prohibition of Human Cloning Act (Vol. 144, 2002). Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.
Commonwealth of Australia (2002b) Research Involving Human Embryos Act (Vol. 145, 2002). Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
10.
Commonwealth of Australia (2006) Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006 (>Vol. 172, 2006). Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
11.
CooperD. (2006) “The Lockhart Review: Where Now for Australia?,” Journal of Law and Medicine14: 27–44.
12.
CordenA.SainsburyR. (2006) Using Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social Research: Researchers’ Views. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.
13.
DouglasH. (2007) “Rejecting the Ideal of Value-free Science,” in KincaidH.DupreJ.WylieA. (eds) Value-Free Science? Ideals or Illusions, pp. 120–39. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
GilbertG. N.MulkayM. (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. London: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GottweisH. (1998) Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
GottweisH. (2002) “Stem Cell Policies in the United States and in Germany: Between Bioethics and Regulation,” Policy Studies Journal30(4): 444–69.
17.
GrossA. (1990) The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
HarveyO. (2008) “Regulating Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning in an Australian Context: The Lockhart Review,” New Genetics and Society27(1): 33–42.
19.
HauskellerC. (2005) “Introduction,” in BenderW.HauskellerC.ManzeiA. (eds) Crossing Borders: Cultural, Religious and Political Differences Concerning Stem Cell Research, pp. 9–24. Munster: Agenda Verlag.
20.
HempelC. G. (1965) “Science and Human Values,” in Aspects of Scientific Explanation: And Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 81–96. New York: Free Press.
21.
JasanoffS. (2004) “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society,” in JasanoffS. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, pp. 13–45. London: Routledge.
22.
JasanoffS. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
LatourB. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
24.
LatourB. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
26.
LaudanL. (1984) Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Legislation Review Committee (2005a) “Issues Paper: Outline of Existing Legislation and Issues for Public Consultation,” Legislation Review of Australia’s Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. URL (consulted 5 August 2005): http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/
28.
Legislation Review Committee (2005b) “Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002,” Legislation Review Committee Reports. URL (consulted 20 December 2005): http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/
29.
LonginoH. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LynchJ. (2009) “Stem Cells and the Embryo: Biorhetoric and Scientism in Congressional Debate,” Public Understanding of Science18(3): 309–24.
31.
LynnW. (1998) “Animals, Ethics and Geography,” in WolchJ.EmelJ. (eds) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, pp. 280–98. London: Verso.
32.
MerriamS. B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
MertonR. K. ([1942] 1973) “The Normative Structure of Science,” in The Sociology of Science, ed. StonerN., pp. 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
MitroffI. (1974) “Norms and Counter-norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists,” American Sociological Review39(4): 579–95.
35.
MooneyC. Z. (2001) “The Public Clash of Private Values,” in MooneyC. Z. (ed.) The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, pp. 3–18. New York: Chatham House.
36.
MulkayM. (1997) The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MyrdalG. (1969) Objectivity in Social Research. New York: Random House.
ParryS. (2003) “The Politics of Cloning: Mapping the Rhetorical Convergence of Embryos and Stem Cells in Parliamentary Debates,” New Genetics and Society22(2): 145–68.
40.
PolanyiM. (1962) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
PrelliL. J. (1997) “The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos,” in HarrisR. A. (ed.) Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, pp. 87–104. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.
42.
ProctorR. N. (1991) Value-Free Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
PutnamH. (2002) The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
ResnikD. B. (1998) The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
45.
RudnerR. (1953) “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” Philosophy of Science20(1): 1–6.
46.
TurnerJ. (1997) The Institutional Order. New York: Longman.
47.
WaldbyC.SalterB. (2008) “Global Governance in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Science: Standardisation and Bioethics in Research and Patenting,” Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology2(1): Article 12.
48.
WaltersL. (2004) “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal14(1): 3–39.
49.
WeaselL. H.JensenE. (2005) “Language and Values in the Human Cloning Debate: A Web-based Survey of Scientists and Christian Fundamentalist Pastors,” New Genetics and Society24(1): 1–14.
50.
WilliamsC.KitzingerJ.HendersonL. (2003) “Envisaging the Embryo in Stem Cell Research: Rhetorical Strategies and Media Reporting of the Ethical Debates,” Sociology of Health & Illness25(7): 793–814.
51.
Wilson-KovacsD. M.WeberS.HauskellerC. (2010) “Stem Cells Clinical Trials for Cardiac Repair: Regulation as Practical Accomplishment,” Sociology of Health & Illness32(1): 89–105.
