This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662508096777v1 18/6/687    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Augoustinos, M. Articles by LeCouteur, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Representations of the stem-cell cloning fraud: from scientific breakthrough to managing the stake and interest of science

¹ Martha Augoustinos is Professor and Co-Director of the Discourse and Social Psychology Unit (DASP) in the School of Psychology, University of Adelaide
² Amelia Russin is a doctoral candidate in the Centre of Sustainable Health Care, within the Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia
³ Amanda LeCouteur is Associate Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Adelaide

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

The meteoric rise of Professor Wu Sook Hwang who had claimed to have successfully cloned embryonic stem cells in two landmark papers published in Science (2004, 2005) came to an abrupt end when it was discovered that the findings reported in both papers had been deliberately fabricated. Given the heightened expectations associated with therapeutic-cloning advances and their potential for alleviating a range of illnesses, this recent case of scientific fraud generated considerable controversy and public interest across the world. This paper examines a sample of texts taken predominantly from the British newsprint media that reported on both the so-called scientific "breakthrough" (as it was initially reported) and the subsequent fraud. Using Gilbert and Mulkay's analysis of scientists' discourse as a theoretical framework, our analysis focuses on how competing repertoires of science were mobilized by the media and the scientific community to account for the fraud. Specifically, we demonstrate how the empiricist repertoire of science was repeatedly mobilized in the initial reporting of the stem-cell "breakthrough" which functioned to warrant the scientific veracity and promissory potential of the findings. In contrast, when this socalled "breakthrough" was discovered to be fraudulent, a contingent repertoire was invoked to construct Hwang as a "bad apple," who was unrepresentative of the scientific community in general. We also detail the use of a Truth-Will-Out rhetorical device which in a similar way functioned to warrant the practice of embryonic stemcell research specifically and the institution of science, more generally.

Key Words: cloning, discourse analysis, scientific discourse, scientific fraud, media, stem-cell research

First published on February 16, 2009, doi:10.1177/0963662508096777

Public Understanding of Science 2009;18:687.

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?