Editor:

Nisbet and Mooney urge that to further scientific agendas scientists must “frame” the social ramifications of their pursuits so as to limit public controversy (Science, Policy Forum: “Framing Science,” Vol. 316, p 56, 6 April 2007). Certainly, framing of issues is a way for different sides to put forth varying interpretations of scientific issues. In framing one of their examples, however, the authors themselves “pare[d] down complex issues” and gave inappropriate emphasis to a mistaken assumption that the debate about embryo stem cells (ESC) is between only two frames: those seeking cures and those opposing the destruction of embryos. Importantly, there is a crucial third issue too often overlooked, one that is “framed” in terms of the risks to women’s health from the extraction of eggs needed for this research. The authors recognize that some “may consider [their] proposal too Orwellian”. To avoid this very rejoinder, consideration must be given to how and when “framing” the issues crosses into occluding them. In the interest of fairness and full public discourse, we invite Science readers to visit www.handsoffourovaries.com and learn for themselves how best to frame controversies surrounding ESC research.

HandsOffOurOvaries Board of Directors:

Abby Lippman, Ph.D.
M. L. Tina Stevens, Ph.D.
Jennifer Lahl, B.S.N., M.A.
Diane Beeson, Ph.D.
Emilia Ianeva ,Ph.D., J. D.
Josephine Quintavalle