Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on January 24, 2009
Human Reproduction 2009 24(5):1106-1113; doi:10.1093/humrep/den496
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/5/1106    most recent
den496v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peddie, V.L.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peddie, V.L.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

‘Not taken in by media hype’: how potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research

V.L. Peddie1,4, M. Porter1, C. Counsell2, L. Caie2, D. Pearson3 and S. Bhattacharya1

1 Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK 2 School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK 3 Department of Endocrinology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK

4 Correspondence address. E-mail: v.peddie{at}abdn.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Views of embryo donors, scientists and members of the general public on embryonic stem cell research (eSCR) have been widely reported. Less is known about views of potential beneficiaries of stem cell therapy and the influence of media ‘hype’ on perceptions of eSCR among different groups of stakeholders. This study aimed to examine the perceptions of members of the general public as well as two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR and to explore the role of the media in shaping these views.

METHODS: A qualitative study carried out in Aberdeen, Scotland included 15 people living with Parkinson’s disease (PD), 15 people living with diabetes mellitus (DM), 15 couples with infertility and 21 members of the general public who volunteered for the study. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using grounded theory.

RESULTS: The two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR in the future differed in their knowledge (mainly gained from the media) and understanding of eSCR. Those living with PD were older, more debilitated and better informed than those with DM who showed limited interest in potential future benefits of eSCR. Infertile couples learnt about eSCR from health professionals who explained the process of embryo donation to them, and had sought no further information. Most of the general public had accessed information on eSCR and believed themselves to be more discerning than others because of their objectivity, intelligence and ‘scientific awareness’. Although, the media and internet were primary sources of information for all except couples with infertility, members of all four groups claimed not to be taken in by the media ‘hype’ surrounding eSCR.

CONCLUSIONS: Those who expected to benefit from eSCR in the future as well as members of the general public differ in their susceptibility to media ‘hype’, while believing that they are not taken in by exaggerated claims of benefits. As respondents were a selected group who were not drawn from a representative sample, the findings cannot be generalized to a wider population.

Key words: stem cell research/qualitative study/perceptions/information seeking/media influence

Submitted on September 15, 2008; resubmitted on December 8, 2008; accepted on December 10, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.