About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 Am. J. Bioethics 1 (2004)

handle is hein.journals/ajbio4 and id is 1 raw text is: Human Embryo Research and the Language of Moral Uncertainty William P. Cheshire, Mayo Clinic In bioethics as in the sciences, enormous discussions often concern the very small. Central to public debate over emerging reproductive and regenerative biotechnologies is the question of the moral status of the human embryo. Because news media have played a prominent role in framing the vo- cabulary of the debate, this study surveyed the use of language reporting on human embryo re- search in news articles spanning a two-year period. Terminology that devalued moral status-for example, the descriptors things, property, tissue, or experimental material-was found to outnum- ber fivefold those that affirmed any degree of moral status above that of inanimate cellular matter; for example, living, human life, or human being. A quarter of the articles failed to note that the em- bryos under discussion were human. These findings confirm that even among scientific and philo- sophical experts a diversity of opinion exists on society's moral obligations to nascent human life. The skewed linguistic distribution also indicates a distinct bias. Concerned readers should take no- tice when any category of humanity becomes subject to prejudicial and disparaging language and the value of vulnerable human life is trivialized alongside sensational assertions of anticipated med- ical cures. The responsibility for holding the media to a higher standard of truth and fairness falls to us all. Introduction Controversy surrounds as never before the question whether the experimental human embryo is a re- search subject due a measure of the protection af- forded fully developed human subjects. The latest scientific advances have opened win- dows on the human embryo that challenge how so- ciety contemplates early human life. Ever since in vitro fertilization technology physically separated embryogenesis from the context of procreation, it has become possible to think of human embryos less as tiny offspring and more as products of the laboratory. Developments in embryology, genetics, and microscopic imaging have rendered visible su- perbly intricate and once hidden biologic processes at the beginning of life. More recently the isolation of embryonic stem cells, speculations about their therapeutic potential, the arrival of mammalian cloning, and proposals for human embryo cloning have propelled the question of how we should treat the embryo to the forefront of scientific inquiry as well as to that first line of public debate-the news media. This study surveys the use of semantics in jour- nalism reporting on the prospects of human em- bryo research. Of interest are the ways in which journalism clarifies or distorts evaluation of the moral status of the human embryo. This in turn determines how well journalism will assist public discourse in resolving the bioethical dilemmas raised by research involving human embryos. Accusations of language manipulation have raged most vigorously in the debate over human cloning. Witness the challenge to the conventional terminology of reproductive versus therapeutic clon- ing from the President's Council on Bioethics (2002), as well as Stanford University's attempt to circumvent controversy by renaming the human embryonic clone an unfertilized blastocyst (Cam- eron and Lahl 2003). A society that seeks the truth and prefers thoughtful ethical debate to political fiat will in- sist on accurate word choice and responsible edito- rial nuance in journalism reporting on this crucial issue, regardless of whether public consensus is achieved. Methods Printed news articles from the years 2001-2002 that employed the words human and embryo were captured electronically by means of the Copernic Internet search engine. A retrospective survey dis- covered 53 articles (after duplicates were elimi- Keywords embryo stem cell research journalism semantics personhood Open Peer Commentaries Jane Maienschein, p. 6 Jeremy B. A. Green, p. 7 William Evans, p. 9 Richard M. Zaner, p. 10 Frederick Grinnell, p. 12 Linda F. Hogle, p. 13 Robert Baker, p. 15 Jessica Berg, p. 17 Nancy L. Jones, p. 18 Jennifer C. Lahl, p. 20 Ronald M. Green, p. 21 Aline Kalbian, p. 22 Nancy King Reame, p. 23 Author's Response William P. Cheshire, p. W31 Winter 2004, Volume 4, Number 1 © 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ajob 1 I TargetArticle

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most