This Article Full Text (PDF) References 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Roth, A. L. Articles by Bero, L. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation

Department of Sociology, Pomona College andy.roth{at}pomona.edu

Joshua Dunsby

University of California, San Francisco jdunsby{at}itsa.ucsf.edu

Lisa A. Bero

Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, Box 0613, San Francisco, California 94143, USA bero{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Governmental health policy officials increasingly seek to promote public participation in expert and technical decisions regarding health regulation. The issues of what rôle the public plays in regulatory processes, and how health policy officials orient to public opinion, matter especially in the US context, where public commentary is a requisite component of federal rule-making. This paper examines written commentary as one specific, institutionalized form of public participation. To understand the relationship between scientific evidence and public commentary in public health regulation, we examine a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, proposed in 1995, to restrict the promotion and sale of tobacco products to minors. We use recent work on collective action frames to analyse how the FDA framed the proposed regulation as a rational, science-based policy; the discursive practices employed in the public commentary either to embrace or to contest the FDA's framing; and how the agency presented the final version of its rule as responsive to that public commentary. Our content analyses reveal a significant disparity between the FDA's emphasis on scientific evidence and the commentators' emphases on political and ideological frames, which we analyse in terms of counter-framing. An orientation to the dynamics of framing and counter-framing contributes to an understanding of the relationship between scientific evidence and public commentary in the formulation of controversial health policy regulations.

Key Words: framing processes • public understanding of science • tobacco control regulation

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 33, No. 1, 7-44 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312703033001038


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. F. Stephens News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers Science Communication, December 1, 2005; 27(2): 175 - 199. [Abstract] [PDF]