David Jiménez (Sociology major)
“Framing Proposition 71: Understanding The Debate Over Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research”
Sponsor: Professor Kristin Luker, Sociology
Project Description
This past November, California passed Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, which allocates 3 billion dollars over the next ten years to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. How did the majority of Californians decide to vote for this initiative? Before the election, groups for and against the measure tried to sway Californians’ opinions through advertising and influencing media coverage of this initiative. In his research David will investigate why and how these groups framed their positions in the way they did to present this initiative to the public. David will examine these groups’ websites as well as newspaper articles from August to November 2004, and interview some of the activists involved in this debate. The outcome of this research will be an extension of his senior honors thesis in sociology.
Scholar's Photo
 |
|
David prepares to write his thesis after spending a summer researching Proposition 71.
|
Scholar's Journal
I started the summer with great anxiety. I had to produce something good in three months! During the first two weeks after the Haas retreat I read several articles on my topic, and thought about the design of my project. In the third week I attended the 3rd annual meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), where I had the opportunity to hear and meet some of the most prestigious researchers in the field of stem cell research. I had, for instance, the chance to listen to Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, and meet Irving Weissman, the Stanford researcher who helped draft Proposition 71.
Although I expected this conference to have only scientists in the biological sciences, I found that there were also social scientists attending this conference. Some of them were also studying Proposition 71. One researcher from Australia, in particular, had conducted a project very similar to mine. I found this very encouraging because it meant that someone else besides me had thought that looking at the debate around this proposition was an important thing to do.
My elation after the conference did not last long, however. During the first two weeks of July I contacted people for interviews. Very few of them responded to messages. Since I am also a McNair scholar, I had to produce a paper by the first week of August. That meant that I had two weeks to write something quick! Fortunately, I discovered a website where a reporter had interviewed some of the major players in this debate. KQED had also hosted three debates where proponents and opponents debated the merits of the initiative. I transcribed these interviews and debates, and by the middle of the first week of August I had a working draft.
I will conduct my interviews this semester. My experience this summer, however, taught me that doing research involves adapting to unexpected situations. Changing the course of one’s research can be scary, but it can greatly enrich the final product. After transcribing several interviews, for example, I now have a better idea of the kinds of questions I would like to ask my interviewees. I also have realized that the campaigners’ disagreement is not limited to Proposition 71: proponents and opponents of this initiative have different views about the role of science in society, and about how science should be funded. During this semester I will explore those differences.
