Expert, healer, reassurer, hero and prophet: framing genetics and medical scientists in television news

Abstract

This paper is concerned with representations of the human genome and medical applications of modern biotechnology in Finnish television news. The main focus is on the way that news stories are framed by various linguistic and visual means and on how scientists appearing in the news are positioned. The qualitative analysis shows that in the national frame, biotechnology was treated as a field with great future promise, weighing the prospects of Finnish scientists to succeed in international competition. In the disease frame, the focus was on the achievements of genetic research in the treatment of serious diseases. In the breakthrough frame, it was predicted that genetics will revolutionise the treatment of diseases in ‘the near future’. Finally, news stories presented in the threat frame were mainly concerned to predict and avert problems arising from the potential abuse of genetic research. The analysis suggests that these frames implied certain speaking positions to the scientists appearing in the news stories.

The media coverage of modern biotechnology has received a lot of research attention in recent years, among others in comparative European projects. For the most part the new technology has been portrayed in a rather positive light, with major European newspapers concentrating on the economic promise of biotechnology (Durant, Bauer & Gaskell, 1998), but in the late 1990s it came under increasingly critical scrutiny (Gaskell & Bauer, 2001).

According to Bauer (2002) the media image of modern biotechnology was relatively consistent and coherent until the early 1990s, but since then it has become more differentiated. While the public perception of medical applications based on biotechnology remained positive, a more critical and controversial attitude began to gain ground in relation to plant genetics, especially during the latter half of the decade. Increasingly, applications of plant genetics were seen as representing the dark side of biotechnology, a useless, high-risk, morally dubious technology controlled and dominated by large multinational corporations. The change was fuelled by disputes over the import of genetically modified food into Europe, food labelling and the marking of food and field experiments with GM crops (Allan, 2002; Bauer, 2002; Gaskell & Bauer, 2001).

Based on a comparative study of newspaper coverage and opinion polls over the past few decades, Bauer (2002) comes to the conclusion that newspaper reporting contributed to the differentiation of the public image of biotechnology and added to the criticism against GM foods. Somewhat more surprisingly, Bauer further concludes that the public criticism of GM foods helped to keep at bay a more critical analysis of medical applications of genetics.

In the Finnish media, biotechnology has received a more positive and less controversial press than in most other European countries. Finnish newspapers have devoted less space to the new technology's potential risks and to ethical issues (Rusanen, von Wright & Rusanen, 1998, 2001). Finnish political culture is marked by high public confidence in scientists and authorities, a rather weak tradition of public debate, a system of technology evaluation dominated by scientists and authorities and by technology optimism (Miettinen & Väliverronen, 1999; Rusanen, 2002).

Even though there has been quite extensive research into the media image of biotechnology, the main focus of this work has been upon the print press and to some extent upon feature films. The image of biotechnology in television news and current affairs programmes, by contrast, has received only marginal attention (however, see Hellsten, 2003; van Dijck, 1998). In her overview into the research literature Anderson (2002, p. 328) concludes: ‘Given the important role that television plays in highlighting current issues, it is surprising how little attention has been devoted to its role in communicating the new genetics’. According to questionnaire surveys, television remains the major source of public information on science and technology (Eurobarometer, 2001; Tiedebarometri, 2001).

The news is also one of the most popular programme genres on television, scoring the highest viewer ratings on both of the television channels included in this study, the public service broadcaster YLE and its main commercial rival MTV3. In the last ten years the two biggest television companies in Finland have been slowly turning from ‘companions to competitors’ (Hellman 1999). MTV3 moved to its own channel in 1993 and since then has regularly commanded the biggest share, almost 40% of Finnish viewers. YLE attracts just over 40% of the viewers on its two channels, TV1 and TV2. Another commercial channel, Channel Four Finland that was launched in 1997, gets around 10% of the viewers (Finnish Mass Media, 2004). In the evening news, however, YLE is a bit stronger than MTV3. The main evening newscast on TV1 has around one million viewers and its rival on MTV3 around 800,000–900,000 viewers.

The material for our study consisted of more than 200 biotechnology news items aired on these two channels' main evening news broadcasts in 1987–2000.1 The specific focus in this article is on news stories concerning the human genome and medical applications of genetics. The corpus of this article thus consists of 118 news stories, 66 from MTV3 and 52 from YLE.

Medicine in the news media—the medicalisation thesis

Several studies indicate that ‘medicine’, ‘health and medicine’, or ‘biomedicine’ is the most common category in science news; in fact many studies suggest that over 45% of science news in the newspapers fall into these categories (e.g., Einsiedel, 1992; Hansen & Dickinson, 1992). Biomedical issues also become front-page news far more often than other science topics in the quality press. Bauer (1998, p. 732) argues that ‘current science news is dominated by biomedical news, and biomedicine is the “prototype of science” in the public imagination’. Leaning on extensive review of media research, public opinion surveys, and a longitudinal analysis on the coverage of science in the British press from the mid-1960s, Bauer argues on behalf of what he calls the ‘medicalisation of science news’.

Medicalisation is not only about quantity but also about the style and quality of science reporting. According to Bauer (1998, p. 742), ‘the rhetorical figures of alarming, personalising and appealing to authority, once characteristic features of biomedical news, are becoming an increasingly dominant feature of general science writing’. He argues that science reportage is becoming more homogenous, and the basic features of medical news represent the core of argumentation in other science news as well. Bauer connects medicalisation to the process of secularisation where ‘sin’ and ‘grace’ are replaced by other kind of normative terms such as ‘healthy diet’ and ‘fitness’. Medical experts take the role of religious experts and supervisors.

According to previous studies (e.g., Karpf, 1988; Petersen, 2001; van Dijck, 1998) there are two main types of news on health and medicine: those that deal with medical innovations and ‘breakthroughs’, and those that deal with frightening diseases. These types of news frequently apply the rhetoric of threat, hope and control. The rhetoric of threat includes the dramatisation of diseases and health hazards as frightening and beyond our control. The rhetoric of hope is most typically used in news about new discoveries and therapies, the purpose being to create expectations that a particular disease will soon be conquered. Finally, the rhetoric of control stresses the position of authority that medicine enjoys in the production and interpretation of health knowledge: medical people will thus appear in news on future threats in the role of producing security.

News stories and framing in the news

Television journalists routinely use the word ‘stories’ to talk about news items. Television researchers also like to highlight the narrative nature of TV news stories: not only do news convey information, they also tell stories. The narration in television news is usually designed to create a certain plot within the framing provided by the news anchor's introduction and the ending of the story, or by the video footage that begins and ends the story.

Fiske (1989, p. 293) has pointed out how TV news also follows ‘the basic narrative structure in which a state of equilibrium is disrupted, the forces of disruption are worked through until a resolution is reached, and another state of equilibrium is reached which may differ from or be identical to the first’. Corner (1995, pp. 57–8), on the other hand, argues that there are many differences between news production and conventional forms of storytelling. News stories are very brief; they usually lack the classic devices of fictional plot movement as well as continuity of action. In many cases, news stories do not have a ‘satisfactory’ resolution or narrative closure. Even so it is possible to argue that television news deploy many narrative techniques, although they may use several different modes or communicative strategies (e.g., Ekström, 2000).

The way that news stories are framed depends both on the narrative conventions of the particular journalistic culture and, more broadly, on socio-cultural ways of viewing and analysing new phenomena through certain set stories or metaphors. By framing issues and events in different ways, television journalism offers its viewers different ways in which to understand reality. In this sense the frame directs both thinking and action.

Frames are ‘largely unspoken and unacknowledged’ and they can be defined as ‘principles of selection, emphasis and presentation’ (Gitlin, 1980, pp. 6–7). According to Entman (1993, p. 52), ‘to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’.

Framing provides journalists with an important tool that helps them organise individual events and broader phenomena into understandable entities with their own causes and consequences. Thus, frames ‘facilitate the journalist's imposition of a narrative framework on his or her interpretation of a news event's significance in the name of a “good story”’ (Anderson et al., 2005, p. 201). Important elements of framing are catch phrases, examples, metaphors and visual images (Gamson & Lasch, 1983; Seppänen & Väliverronen, 2003; Väliverronen & Hellsten, 2002).

In the qualitative analysis I divided the material collected for the purposes of this study into four different frames that recur in the treatment of several different news subjects (cf. Hellsten, 2003). In the national frame, biotechnology was treated as a field with great future promise, weighing the prospects of Finnish scientists to succeed in international competition. In the disease frame, the focus was on the achievements of genetic research in the treatment of serious diseases. In the breakthrough frame, it was predicted that genetics will revolutionise the treatment of diseases in ‘the near future’. Finally, news stories in the threat frame were mainly concerned with predicting and averting problems due to the potential abuse of genetic research.

These news frames and narratives also positioned the medical professionals appearing in the stories into particular ‘speaking positions’. The most important of these positions were those of expert, healer, reassurer, hero and prophet. A position in a narrative ‘is defined as a set of rights, duties and obligations with respect to the kind of statements that a person occupying a position can legitimately or properly make’ (Harré, Brockmeier & Mühlhäusler, 1999, p. 83; see also Harré & van Langenhove, 1991). Speaking position is relative to the discourse analysed, and in the case of television news it depends mainly on the narrative and visual images employed in the particular news story.

Table 1. Framing and positioning in television news

Frame	National	Disease	Breakthrough	Threat
topic/point of view	future national competitiveness	finding a gene (error)	future new medicines	applications of genetics
basic narrative tension	national/international	disease/treatment	present/future disease/treatment	science/business
visual environment	laboratory	patients providing a ‘face’ to the disease	anonymous patients	laboratory corporations
metaphors, catch phrases	‘territorial conquest’ ‘top of the world’ ‘secret of life’	‘risk gene’ ‘gene discovery’	‘breakthrough’ ‘key’ ‘target medicine’	‘rules of the game’
scientist's position in the narrative	expert hero	expert healer	prophet hero	reassurer representative of patients

Science of the future: framing the national project

Biotechnology and genetic research became television news in Finland in the latter half of the 1980s. In these early news stories biotechnology was represented as a great future promise that was just beginning to unfold. Almost without exception, though, these stories came with the warning that Finland was beginning to fall behind in the international competition because we were not giving scientists the resources they needed. The first news stories, then, dealt with the subjects of ‘lack of funding’, ‘lack of resources’ or ‘lack of researchers’:

Biotechnology, the science of the future, is on the verge of breakthrough here in Finland as well. However the development of this new discipline is being hampered by a scarcity of research staff and up to date equipment. (YLE news, 30 January 1987)

The science of the future was discussed in a national frame, comparing the situation in Finland with the pioneers of genetic research. Finland was portrayed as a leading force in international science and research and as a technological pioneer, but struggling to keep up with the United States, Japan and others in the field of biotechnology research.

The science of the future was expected to yield significant economic and health benefits. In the spirit of 1980s techno-optimism, the stories painted a glowing future for biotechnology:

It is possible that biotechnology will eventually help us resolve the world food problem and the problems of agricultural overproduction, reduce environmental hazards in the wood processing industry and find new effective vaccinations against viral diseases, for example. (YLE TV news, 30 January 1987)

Most of the visual material in these science-of-the-future stories consisted of footage from laboratories where students were hard at work or where the scientists interviewed did their research. Computer animations were also used. It is interesting that the methods of visualising genetic research hardly changed at all from the 1980s through to the late 1990s. Although the technology both at the laboratories and in TV news visualisation had advanced considerably by the late 1990s, the basic ideas were still largely the same: most of the photo material featured laboratories and computer-generated graphics of the structure and operation of genes. In the plot structure of the news stories, the scientists interviewed were placed into the role of expert: from that vantage-point they offered their views on how they thought the field should be developed.

The science-of-the-future idea was what gave genetic research its newsworthiness, its social significance and visibility. This was supported by predictions about future economic significance and references to national competitiveness. The subject was brought closer to the viewer by showing pictures of research laboratories and by computer graphics, helping to draw a parallel with traditional medicine and with space research. The latter association was also reinforced by recurring references to genetic researchers' commitment to ‘revealing the secrets of life’ (Hellsten, 2003). In these stories scientists were typically positioned either as neutral experts explaining the needs of their research community or as heroes running in the forefront of research.

The development of a national scene can be understood both from the vantage-point of the social role of science and technology and from the point of view of the instrumental nature of TV news. Science and technology have been unanimous national projects in Finland, with academic intellectuals and engineers showing the way. Finland has never really been affected by the kind of critical public debate and occasional technology pessimism that have swept across most other Western European and Scandinavian countries (Miettinen & Väliverronen, 1999). This is further supported by the way in which science is represented in the media in terms of national or regional success stories, with success measured first and foremost in terms of immediate applications and economic benefits (Kauhanen, 1997). Television news broadcasts continue to represent a national agenda for people in Finland, a collection of common news and topics of discussion. This national function is stressed most clearly in and by YLE's TV news (Ridell, 1998).

Explaining disease: experts and healers

Most of the news stories on the human genome and medical applications dealt with the discovery of some specific gene. By linking these discoveries and innovations with diseases and their treatment, the news stories created a human interest angle that is a common tool in science popularisation. The account that was given of the disease and its new treatments created an image of genetic research as a line of work that was bringing immediate and concrete benefits. Frequently, these news stories featured patients who suffered from the disease concerned, either in background footage or sometimes as interviewees. The patients gave the disease a human face and the provided the viewer a target for identification: they illustrated the human suffering to which genetic research was bringing relief. The interviews with patients were usually shot in their own home, but sometimes at press briefings organised by scientists.

Most of these news stories had a very similar narrative structure. First, the news anchor would introduce the news by saying that a new gene error had been discovered or new therapies developed, raising hopes about the possibility of the disease being treatable in the future. Next, the news clip would proceed to background footage of patients who suffered from the disease. Then, the expert was brought in to explain the meaning of the new discovery or innovation to understanding the disease. This was followed by more background footage or by interviews with patients. Finally, the expert would be asked what he or she thought about the prospects of developing new therapies or treatments. The response, more often than not, was cautious but optimistic.

In the frame of disease, news on the discovery of a new gene (or more precisely, a new ‘gene error’) serves as a vantage-point for a new interpretation of disease aetiology. From a narrative point of view, the story was built up around the tension between the problem (disease) and its solution (treatment). Although the news story was usually instigated by the finding of a new gene, this discovery was seen in the broader context of the disease as a whole and earlier research.

In these news stories the scientist interviewed was usually positioned either as a cautious expert or a healer (which is typically a doctor's role). In the former position, the scientist would make cautious but optimistic comments about the new findings, refraining from making any promises about a new treatment (and thus thwarting expectations raised in the news anchor's introduction). The scientist-like habitus underscored the speaker's expert status: he usually appeared in a suit and tie, she in a two-piece costume. The experts interviewed were usually middle-aged men, the background footage in turn usually featured a young woman working in a laboratory. In the position of healer, the scientist would usually be asked to comment upon the prospects of finding a cure. This was emphasised by the scientist's white coat. The healer was represented as a tireless toiler who spent all his waking hours trying to find a cure for people's ailments.

A good example of this type of framing is provided by a news story on the discovery of a gene error that is responsible for diastrophic dysplasia2 (MTV3 news, 22 September 1994). The news anchor's introduction raises expectations of a new treatment and the whole story is structured around film material of sufferers which is interspersed with interviews with scientists. The first scientist who appears in the clip cautions against overly optimistic assessments with regard to timetables: ‘this is bound to be a slow process’. The second scientist comments upon the possibility of gene transfers, emphasising the difficulties that are involved in the procedure. In principle, both experts take a positive but cautious view on the new discovery.

In this news story the last word is left to a patient who assures she is ‘entirely happy and content with her life’. Her main concern is with the ethical problems that may ensue from the screening of potential carriers of the disease. The patient in this story has a very central role in popularising research results and in creating a human interest angle. She has been assigned to the role of an expert on her own disease and in that capacity she has been asked to complement the scientist's expert account. In most news, however, the patients were given the traditional ideological task of serving the story of medical progress, without any independent role of their own.

Breakthrough science: from discoveries to new products and treatments

In the breakthrough frame the disease was defined from a narrower perspective than in the frame of disease: the focus here was upon the individual's genetic makeup. From this point of view, the disease appeared as a more closely defined problem that could be addressed and resolved by means of gene technology. News stories that described new gene discoveries created strong expectations about the future. The basic narrative structure of breakthrough stories was often quite similar to that within the frame of disease. In both cases, images of sufferers alternated with interviews with scientists and their interpretations of the research findings. Also, in both cases the journalist turned the interviewees' attention to the future, asking them what they expected of future treatments. While in the disease frame scientists usually were somewhat cautious and dubious in their commentary, in breakthrough stories they were positioned more optimistic. In this way the two discourses, the journalist's and the scientist's, supported each other, without any trace of conflict.

Research in the natural sciences and genetics is often described as a process of unraveling ‘secrets’. The scientific literature likes to talk about new ‘discoveries’; science popularisation then upgrades these same ‘discoveries’ into ‘breakthroughs’ in the development of science and technology. The future-oriented metaphor of a ‘breakthrough’ is a key element in the promise rhetoric. It ‘implies the building of suspense and momentum towards future events’ (Brown, 2001, p. 92). Where ‘discovery’, in scientific terminology, refers to the production of new knowledge, a ‘breakthrough’ describes the solutions that technology has produced to existing problems.

The term ‘breakthrough’ was first used in 1993 in a story on Alzheimer's research in the United States (YLE news, 13 August 1993). The event was again framed by the news anchor's introduction: ‘Scientists in the US have developed a method that may lead to a breakthrough in the prevention of Alzheimer's disease’. The American scientist who was interviewed on the subject, used the familiar rhetoric of hope and future promise:

This gives us great hope that over the next 5–10 years we will find new treatments because we're on the right road…. These people were completely normal during the first 60–65 years of their life. If we can make the right kind of assessment well ahead of the outbreak of the disease, they can go on to lead healthy lives even to the age of one hundred. (YLE news, 13 August 1993)

Breakthrough rhetoric was most typically used in the news anchors' introductions to arouse expectations that genetic research will bring real benefits to the treatment of diseases. Usually, the medical professionals appearing in the news were positioned as prophets. Thus, scientists used the same rhetoric of hope and promise as the journalists did. A good example of a story that is set in the breakthrough frame and that uses the rhetoric of hope is a news item on Alzheimer's research. The news anchor starts out by building up expectations:

Researchers at Kuopio Central University Hospital have made an internationally important breakthrough in the study of Alzheimer's disease…. Researchers have discovered a gene that increases the risk of getting the disease… (MTV3 news, 10 September 1994)

This introduction is followed by alternating images of elderly Alzheimer sufferers and an interview with a scientist who sticks with the rhetoric of hope. As the film cuts to the trembling hands and feet of these frail old people, the scientist becomes positioned into the role of producer of hope and healer. Rounding up his story, the reporter goes on to arouse expectations of the financial significance of this research:

This breakthrough by Finnish researchers opens up the prospects of developing a drug that may have significance even for the national economy. (MTV3 news, 10 September 1994)

The scientist picks up the challenge and positions himself in the rhetoric of hope inspired by the way the story is framed:

Well for the pharmaceuticals industry this is really significant in the sense that it opens up opportunities for new approaches to treatment.

The persuasiveness of future rhetoric depends not only on whether the future is represented in a positive, bright light or as being overshadowed by threats and risks. In addition, the way in which the future is represented as being close by or further away serves different rhetorical purposes. Since the promise rhetoric of genetics is directed not only to the general public (whether in their capacity as citizens, consumers, or bystanders; see Hellsten, 2003), but also and importantly to investors and companies working with biotechnology applications, it makes sense to represent the future in terms of a tomorrow that is waiting ‘just around the corner’ (Väliverronen, 2004).

One way of getting the viewer interested is to reduce the time gap, to pull back the issue covered in the news closer to the present time. A good example is the following news anchor's introduction to a report on the discovery of the gene that causes epilepsy:

This here is an epilepsy operation in a German operating theater. The future, however, lies in a receptor-targeted drug that will remove the symptoms of epilepsy, and that future may not be all that far away. Finnish researchers have now discovered a gene fault that causes a rare form of hereditary epilepsy. (YLE news, 22 March 1996)

News stories in the breakthrough frame use a similar kind of video footage as those in the disease frame, showing pictures of laboratories and patients. However these pictures had a different function in the breakthrough frame: in these stories patients did not normally have an independent role but in most cases they appeared anonymously in the background. And even when they were interviewed, the questions usually concerned their expectations about new treatments. The patients' accounts were used to support the story of medical progress. A good example is provided by an MTV3 news item on the discovery of the gene that is responsible for epilepsy. The journalist offers to the patient a role that is clearly hard for him to refuse:

Journalist: How does this new discovery sound from a patient's point of view?

Patient: Interesting.

Journalist: Inspires new hope?

Patient: Ye-es. (MTV3 news, 22 March 1996)

In addition to the position of a prophet, the breakthrough frame offered the medical professionals interviewed the position of a hero. This was made available to the scientist especially in news stories on science awards. Here, scientists were said to be engaged in work to ‘reveal secrets that concern the whole of humankind’, and their careers were compared to those of ‘top athletes’ who had ‘gained international eminence’. Nelkin (1996) says that this ‘breakthrough syndrome’ has its background both in media news competition and in scientists' own objectives. When they are trying to sell a particular news item to their editor, reporters will often stress that the event concerned is unique and important. Scientists do the same when they talk to journalists.

Getting the threat under control: scientist as reassurer

In contrast to plant genetics that in the latter half of the 1990s were often treated as problems and threats (regulation problems, consumer choices, environmental and health hazards, dubious business strategies, etc.), it was very rarely that news concerning the human genome and medical applications of genetics were framed in this way in TV news. There were a few exceptions, though, notably stories on the possibility of human cloning, doping in sport and some news items on genetic screening and legislation. These types of news within the frame of threat were usually structured around the basic narrative convention that started out from the threat, and then proceeded to describe the problems it was causing and the forces working against it, and finally arrived at a state of equilibrium.

In these news stories, the threats originated almost always from outside the country's borders, and the reassurance at the end of the story came from Finnish scientists. Scientists were positioned in the role of reassurer and producer of safety. In this position they were usually allowed to appear without anyone contesting their arguments. Any opposing forces would usually remain anonymous: they were foreigners, unethical researchers or simply represented ‘commercial interests’.

In addition to the position of safety producers, the scientists interviewed could also take up the position of civic right advocate. A good example is a news item from the United States on the use of gene therapy in the treatment of serious diseases. It is said in the story that an insurance company had refused to grant a policy to a child who was known to carry a gene that predisposes to a certain heart disease. The Finnish medical expert who is interviewed takes on the citizen's position: ‘This is a delicate issue between the patient and the doctor’ (YLE news, 8 July 1996). In another, domestic news story on genetic screening, the scientist interviewed anchors himself even more firmly to the citizen's position: ‘Would you want your employer or insurance company to have immediate access to your genetic information’ (YLE news, 7 May 1998). This illustrates the way that the scientist takes on the broad role of expert in which she takes a stance on questions of civic rights, ethical issues, economic consequences and social problems. According to LaFollette (1990), this kind of omniscient expert is one of the most typical symbolic characters in US science journalism. What makes this case so interesting is that the advocate of civic rights is not an ordinary citizen or representative of a patient organisation, but a scientist.

Finnish scientists appeared in the position of reassurer not only in news on threats, but also when they were asked to comment upon research results from other countries. This involved interpreting and explaining the findings made abroad as well as their practical applications: more often than not, the scientists would call into question the conclusion that research was now making rapid headway and that new drugs and treatments would soon be available. Some of these interviews were done in the news studio. One example is provided by the news on the cloning of Dolly the sheep (YLE news, 25 February 1997). The scientist who is interviewed by the news anchor first appears in the role of explaining and interpreting the phenomenon, and then proceeds to the position of reassurer:

In my opinion it helps to dispel the suspicions there have been about the safety of this all. The increasing publicity surrounding this law will also help to engender confidence between scientists and the general public in this issue.

In this case security is produced not only by what the interviewee is actually saying, but also by the visual environment in which the news anchor and the scientist are exchanging friendly words. Often reporting on events from a seemingly chaotic world, the news studio is a reassuring element that seems to convey the message that things are under control after all.

Conclusions

The present study lends support to observations made in several earlier studies that medicine and human genetics tend to be represented in the news media in a generally positive light (see, e.g., Anderson, 2002; Conrad, 1999; Durant et al., 1998; Petersen, 2001; van Dijck, 1998). The stories on human genetics positioned the scientists interviewed typically as an expert, healer, hero, prophet and reassurer.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s medical genetics and biotechnology in general were typically framed as a national issue, a promising new technology and a key area in research policy. This helped the biotechnology issue to evolve as a new topic on the news agenda and framed biotechnology as a future promise. The national frame returned to the agenda in the late 1990s when growing attention was paid to biotechnology as a target of investment.

Science and technology policy not only in Finland but in many other countries has been very much geared to promoting science and technology as a national project (Miettinen & Väliverronen, 1999). With the increased public funding now available for academic research and corporate R&D, the number of biotechnology companies in the country has soared to over 120 (Kuusi, 2001). Most of these companies are still comparatively small, however, and the impact of the biotechnology industry in the Finnish national economy remains marginal (Schienstock & Tulkki, 2001). In national science and technology policy, however, gene research and biotechnology have gained a very prominent role. The consensus is also evident in the public discourse on biotechnology, and consumer and environmental organisations have played a minor role. This is perhaps one reason why the moral and ethical dimensions of biotechnology have received only scant attention in the public debate in Finland (Väliverronen, 2004).

The majority of the news in our study dealt with ‘gene discoveries’ (Hellsten, 2003). These scientific discoveries were typically framed in two different ways. First, in the frame of disease, new research findings were represented as steps in the fight against serious diseases. Along with scientists and doctors, patients suffering from the disease concerned were also given a voice in these news stories. The patients gave the disease a human face and provided the viewer a target for identification.

Second, the basic narrative of breakthrough stories was often quite similar to that within the frame of disease. In both cases images of sufferers alternated with interviews with scientists and their interpretations of the research findings. However, the frame of breakthrough provided a more straightforward explanation for the disease. The defective gene was presented a key to understanding the disease and developing a new treatment that was waiting just around the corner. The scientists were typically positioned as prophets (anticipating new drugs and treatments) or as scientific heroes almost comparable to top athletes.

This basic storyline helped the journalists to tell a concise and understandable story on the latest development in human genetics and medical research. Television news stories, typically condensed into no more than 1–2 minutes, are not easily amendable to more complex narrative structures. Journalistic practices and narrative conventions typical of TV news stressed the role of genetic research in ‘revealing the secrets of life’ and in conquering diseases. However, outright genetic determinism (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995) was not particularly common in the news, but was mainly confined to the breakthrough frame. In the disease frame the information on new gene discoveries was related to other causes of the disease and the role of genetic makeup in the aetiology of diseases was relativised. However, even this frame had built-in expectations of inevitable progress in the science of medicine as well as high hopes of the new treatments produced by genetic research.

Biotechnology was typically framed as a ‘science of the future’ and its applications as ‘waiting just around the corner’. In the news narratives biotechnology was defined as a solution to existing problems, such as various human diseases. This way a story was created that ran from problem through to its future solution, from ‘discoveries’ and ‘breakthroughs’ through to ‘keys to future drugs’ (Hellsten, 2003; Väliverronen, 2004).

It was notable that the news stories were presented as controversies only by chance. The frame of threat was also used rather infrequently, typically in stories on the use of genetic data in relation to insurance or employment. In these stories scientists were typically positioned as reassurers.

Patients appeared in many of the news stories on gene discoveries and new treatments, mainly in background video footage, but sometimes they were interviewed as well. The choice of these patients was sometimes made by the scientists themselves: which is evident from the fact that some of them were interviewed at press conferences called by these scientists. Having patients speak up on their behalf serves the scientists' goal of enlightening citizens about diseases that are of immediate concern to them. In addition, patients appearing in disease stories also serve to strengthen people's faith in science, the view that all threats to human health can eventually be contained by means of science.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Academy of Finland. The author would like to thank Iina Hellsten, the two anonymous reviewers, and David Kivinen.

Notes

1. The data were drawn from the two television companies' news archives using the search terms ‘gene’ and ‘biotechnology’. Those stories were excluded from the more detailed analysis in which the subjects were mentioned only in passing. For the quantitative content analysis, a total of 211 news stories aired on the two channels' main evening news broadcasts in 1991–2000 were selected. For a more qualitative analysis, earlier (1987–1990) news items were also selected from the YLE archive.

2. Diastrophic dysplasia is a recessively inherited chondrodysplasia, one of which is particularly common in Finland. This term describes dwarfism with perhaps the most numerous and severe skeletal abnormalities from cervical spine to the feet. In Finland, 1–2% of the general population are carriers and a total of 180 cases have been diagnosed (see Norio, 2003).