Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and christian fundamentalist pastors

Abstract

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the 'first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology' (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p.313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning). In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over 'playing God' for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.

‘All things weird and scary’: Nanotechnology, theology and cultural resources

“…A (US-based) survey of research scientists and Christian pastors on views on human cloning similarly revealed strong similarities in what forms of cloning were or were not seen as permissible (Weasel and Jensen 2005). Finally, Tamatea (2008) analysed Christian websites in an attempt to understand lay Christian responses to 'GRIN' (genetics, robotics, information and nano) technologies as they could apply to developments in artificial intelligence.…”

Abortion rhetoric in American news coverage of the human cloning debate

“…First, the Christian fundamentalist author describes cloning in superficially neutral terms: "scientists create human embryos for medical experimentation." However, both the idea of scientists "creating" human embryos and the idea of "experimentation" are loaded with negative connotations for a Christian fundamentalist audience (Weasel & Jensen, 2005). In the next sentence, "harvesting" cells from "tiny beings," evokes negative images of utilitarian, science-based abortion and "baby farming"…”

Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005–6)

“…However, these values and ideals are not discrete and individuals may identify with the values of both at any one time and incorporate them into the language they use in public discourse (Weasel & Jensen, 2005). As such, participants may draw upon a range of epistemic and ontological resources in formulating their perspectives, even if these conflict with the prevailing norms of a particular institution (Jasanoff, 2004).…”