Political Communication in the 2007 Stem Cell Debate:

Framing Messages and Defining Public Opinion

Matthew Nisbet
January 5, 2007

All eyes are on Capitol Hill as Nancy Pelosi and the newly elected House majority push for stem cell legislation that would override President George W. Bush’s tight limits on research funding. The stem cell bill is part of Pelosi’s “Six for ’06” agenda, with Democrats having ambitiously promised to pass the legislation during the first hundred hours of House business.

The “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act” authorizes federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells donated from in vitro fertilization clinics regardless of when the cell lines were created. The legislation does not allow funding for stem cells derived from embryos created expressly for research purposes or from so-called cloned embryos.

The bill is really a “left-over” initiative from this past summer when Congressional Democrats joined with a substantial minority of Republicans to pass legislation, only to have the President veto the law. Supporters at the time were unable to muster the required two-thirds of votes in the House and the Senate to override the veto.

In 2007, however, things are likely to be different. Democrats will hold a 233-202 advantage in the House and will control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. Michael Werner and Jonathan Moreno at the Center for American Progress predict that the reintroduced stem cell legislation would be likely to gain 66 votes in the Senate, teetering just one vote shy of overturning a Bush veto.

According to Werner and Moreno, the House is a bigger challenge. This past summer, the stem cell bill passed in the chamber with 235 votes, well short of the 290 needed to overturn the Bush’s veto. However, complicating matters this year, several pro-stem cell Republicans have lost their seats, while many of the newly elected southern “Blue Dog” Democrats have yet to offer a position on the issue. In all, Werner and Moreno forecast that the House may be 40 votes shy of a two-thirds majority.

The battle to achieve a two-thirds majority in the House will include a major effort to mobilize public opinion and exert political pressure on key House members. Both sides in the stem cell debate are geared up for massive communication initiatives, lobbying journalists with carefully crafted pitches, plastering opinion-pages with columns, op-eds, and letters, and hitting the public directly with issue ads, direct mail and telemarketing campaigns, and targeted email lists. For stem cell opponents, churches will be an important staging ground, with sermons stirring emotions, and recruitment efforts linking church-goers to the phone numbers and addresses of swing House members.

New Legislation, Same Message Tactics

As I have detailed in past columns, advocates from both sides will “frame” messages in ways that resonate with public values and popular culture. These tactics play on the perceptual biases of the public, making it easy for citizens to reach decisions and articulate opinions with little or no actual technical understanding of the underlying issue.

Groups favoring expanded government funding will continue to argue that research “offers hope for millions of Americans,” while current limits on Federal dollars would catalyze an overseas “brain drain” of top scientific talent. Along these lines, expect more commercials pushing the Michael J. Fox theme, with patients or celebrities offering testimony about the “social progress” potential of research. Despite the complexities of the issues involved, visuals will rule the day. For example, when making speeches, pro-research legislators will appear before background billboards with the emblazoned slogans “Providing Hope for New Cures” and other selected slogans, while surrounding themselves with patient advocates.

In contrast, opponents of funding will continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are “playing God” and destroying human life. Based on this reasoning, government funding would make all taxpayers complicit in an immoral act. Expect more photo-ops of Bush posing with “snowflake” babies while making bully pulpit references to “crossing an important ethical boundary.” In legislative debate, hardliners like Senator Sam Brownback will repeatedly refer in speeches to “experiments” on “young humans.” (See this clip.)

In recent years, opponents have also evolved in their message strategy, realizing that they can potentially impact the ambivalent citizen on the issue by pairing the moral interpretation with a "public accountability" frame that defines funding as only benefiting “special interest” biotechnology companies. (See these commercials from Missouri.) The emphasis on the “commodification of life” by “corporate science” may resonate with segments of the public that might otherwise reject religiously-based appeals.

Slight Majority of Americans Support Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In combination with selectively framing the science and ethics of stem cell research, advocates are also likely to strategically define where the public stands on the matter. Indeed, over the summer, I was a bit puzzled to read and hear assertions by advocates and journalists that “three-quarters” of Americans supported research.

For example, in the lead up to Bush’s veto, Nancy Pelosi was featured on National Public Radio as declaring: “The American people have spoken. Seventy-two percent of Americans support ethically based stem cell research. In vetoing this legislation, the President would be saying ‘No’ to 72 percent of the American people.” Yet based on news organization and other independently sponsored surveys, overwhelming public support is by no means a “slam dunk” conclusion. In fact the best available polling data shows that while support for research has increased since 2001, support among American adults lingers at only slight majority levels.

Consider results from the VCU Life Sciences surveys conducted each year since 2001. These poll questions ask respondents neutrally: “On the whole, how much do you favor or oppose medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos?” From these polls, support appears to have peaked to date in 2005 at 58%, and the most recent survey, taken just after the November election indicates 54% support.

Figure 1. Survey Sponsored by VCU Life Sciences. Telephone survey of representative samples of American adults. Go here for more details.

Poll findings gathered by the Pew Center for the People and the Press are consistent with the VCU results. Pew asked respondents: “All in all, which is more important: Conducting stem cell research that might result in new medical cures OR Not destroying the potential life of human embryos involved in this research?” From these polls, asked slightly differently from the VCU surveys, support still only registers in the mid-50% range.

Figure 2. Survey Sponsored by Pew Center for the People and the Press. Telephone survey of representative samples of American adults. Go here for details.

There are two likely reasons these independent polls differ from the survey results cited by pro-research advocates. In the polls commissioned by these groups, they usually either a) in the question wording itself prime respondents to consider the potential for cures by listing applications to a host of diseases such as Alzheimer’s’ or Parkinson’s, or b) at the opening of the survey ask respondents separately if they or someone close to them suffer from “any of the following diseases.”

As an example of this “psychology of survey response” at work, consider what the researchers at VCU observed in their independent survey in 2006. First, as detailed in Figure 1, when they asked respondents neutrally about stem cell research, support registered at 54%.

They then followed by prompting respondents to specifically consider the potential for medical progress by asking: “If you or a family member had a condition such as Parkinson’s disease or a spinal cord injury, would you support the use of embryonic stem cells in order to pursue a treatment for that condition?” Placed hypothetically in the shoes of a patient, and asked to consider the potential for medical treatment, among the same sample of respondents, support for the use of embryonic stem cell research increased to 70%.

Research opponents have used similar framing techniques in their surveys. In Figure 3, consider the results from polls commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In these questions, the USCCB framed the issue around considerations of morality, with language that evoked images of abortion and the use of tax dollars to destroy embryos. Specifically, respondents were asked: “Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person’s tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering whether to provide funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments?”

Not surprisingly, in early 2001, with the public having heard little if anything about the issue, the results show that when asked in this fashion, a strong majority of respondents answered that they opposed stem cell research. Yet across years the “negative” response to research when framed in this selective way declines dramatically, suggesting that citizens increasingly have had available to them competing “social progress” interpretations that were strong enough to counter the “morality” frame provided in the NCCB-sponsored poll questions.

Figure 3. Surveys Sponsored by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Telephone survey of representative samples of American adults. Go here for more details.

The Values Gap in Public Opinion

Though the aggregate poll data at the national level reveals an American public almost evenly split on the issue, in Figure 4 a look behind the poll numbers at key demographic groups reveals that most of the lingering opposition derives from the roughly 30% of Americans who identify themselves as Evangelical protestants, while other segments of the public have moved to levels of very strong support for research. As I have described previously in studies and columns (here and here), on the issue of embryo research, religious identity serves as a very strong perceptual screen on the various arguments available by way of news coverage.

According to the Pew data, while Catholics, mainline Protestants, and non-religious Americans may be open to the dominant frames of social progress pushed by pro-research advocates, Evangelicals remain anchored by their acceptance of the rival morality frame. In 2006, however, for the first time Evangelical opinion appears to have shifted towards increased support, though still falling short of a majority among this group.

Figure 4. Surveys Sponsored by the Pew Center for People and the Press. Go here for details.

Moreover, in studies I find that even after controlling statistically for religious identity, partisanship remains an important factor shaping American views of research. In fact, polling data from Gallup suggests that the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign may have provided readily available cues for the American public that stem cell research was indeed a “partisan” issue.

Following the election, for the first time, Gallup surveys reflect a significant gap between Democrats and Republicans in their views on the moral acceptability of research. In these polls displayed in Figure 5, respondents were asked: “Is medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos morally acceptable?”

Figure 5. Surveys Sponsored by the Gallup Organization. Partisan breakdown includes independents who describe themselves as “leaning” towards one or the other party. Go here for details.

Finally, in understanding the “partisan gap” in opinion, it is useful to look at the Gallup data to see where Democrats and Republicans place the moral acceptability of embryonic stem cell research relative to other issues. In Table 1, for Democrats, at 69% acceptability, stem cell research scores relatively high, at the top of the list along with divorce, premarital sex, and gambling. For Republicans, at 53% acceptability, stem cell research rests among a midrange of issues along with gambling and premarital sex.

(As an aside, somewhat paradoxically, 82% of Republicans consider the death penalty morally acceptable, while many Republicans still support the war in Iraq, despite the many troop and civilian casualties. Over the summer, this “moral inconsistency” was the subject of a hilarious parody by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.)

Political Success at the Cost of Public Trust?

We are now going on year six of the stem cell debate, and despite major news attention to the issue, and tens of millions of dollars spent on advertising and communication campaigns across the country, the public still scores relatively low in both knowledge of the science and the politics involved.

Consider that in the 2006 VCU survey, when asked which area of research holds the greatest promise for discovering new treatments for disease, 22% of the public said embryonic stem cell research, 17% said adult stem cell research, and 25% said using stem cells from other sources. In the same survey, only 7% of Americans said they were very clear about the differences between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

In a study I conducted in the spring of 2005, at that time, only 25% of Americans could correctly identify what the acronym N-I-H stands for, only 12% knew correctly that the Federal government currently has no laws regulating human cloning, and in a multiple choice question, only 46% could correctly identify the nature of the ballot proposition that was passed in California a few months earlier.

Given the multitude of competing issues in the world, and given limited time, motivation, and ability, it is in fact quite reasonable for the public to rely on heuristics such as partisanship or religious belief to make up their minds about a complicated issue such as stem cell research. This fact might not fit with democratic ideals or with the preferences of scientists, but it is human nature.

Political strategists understand this, and it’s why they carefully frame their messages around simplistic interpretations of either “stem cell research leads to cures,” or “stem cell research is morally wrong,” pairing these messages with celebrity or religious spokespeople. However, for science advocates who care about winning the short term political battle to overturn Bush’s misguided stem cell policy, there is a delicate balance to be struck. As I have argued elsewhere, narrowly focusing on educating the public about the science or the “facts” involved in the debate will not move public opinion nor be persuasive.

On the other hand, science advocates have to be careful in their framing strategy. If they oversell the science, and push too much of the social progress frame to the point where messages turn into hyperbole, then they risk public trust.

The communication dilemma in the stem cell debate parallels in part the current problems in conveying to the public the urgency of global warming. In this case, many political leaders, environmentalists, and even some scientists define global warming as a looming catastrophe of unknown and devastating consequences that requires immediate and dramatic political action. Journalists have picked up on this frame as a way to dramatize an otherwise technical topic, employing images of polar bears on shrinking ice floes and hurricane devastation.

Yet this interpretation fails because it opens up scientists and advocates to criticism from industry-affiliated skeptics. Given the scientific uncertainty surrounding the causes of many specific climate impacts, the message tactic has led to charges of "alarmism" (another framing device) from many conservatives, most notably outgoing Senate Environment Chair James Inhofe. Even worse, polling data indicates that the message strategy employed by environmental advocates isn’t really impacting public opinion.

In the stem cell debate, science advocates need to make sure that they are honest about the uncertainties in research, while simultaneously communicating the hope for important therapies and treatments. As I have argued in this column, accuracy in communication also means being honest about where public opinion stands.

The opposition is watching, and when inevitable scandals in science erupt such as the Korean cloning affair, stem cell opponents are going to shower communication channels with claims that scientists are willing to go to any extreme to promote their self-interests, and that embryonic stem cell research is “junk science.” In our sound bite culture, and especially when research opponents don’t play by the same rules, effectively engaging the public on stem cell research is a major challenge. Yet wisdom and precision is needed. At risk is public trust.

* To understand more about political communication strategy in the stem cell debate, view this online video of a lecture I gave at a 2006 conference sponsored by the UCLA Center on Society and Genetics.

Recommended Reading

Nisbet, M.C. & Goidel, K. (forthcoming). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science.

Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28 (2), 175-192.

Nisbet, M.C. (2006, Jan.) The new partisan divide in stem cell research. Skeptical Inquirer Online.

Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112.

Nisbet, M.C. (2004, Nov.) Explaining majority support for stem cell research. Skeptical Inquirer Online.

Nisbet, M.C. (2004). The Polls: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 132-155.

Nisbet, M.C. (2004, April). The stem cell debate: Tracking the rise and fall of science in the public eye. Skeptical Inquirer Online.

Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8 (2), 36-70.