Frame Analysis of Stakeholders in Scientific Controversies

The Issue of Fish Intake within United States’ Scientific Literature

Abstract

　 This study examines the scientific controversy surrounding food safety regulation in the United States, specifically the dispute regarding health risks caused by carcinogenic chemicals, and the health benefits of Omega―3 fatty acids associated with fish intake, as presented in scientific literature. Using web searches, scientific literature and social commentary were selected, and then organized into three separate categories: (I) peer-reviewed articles, (II) research reports based on original scientific data, and (III) evaluation and commentary of these two-types of scientific literature.

　 Research was carried out by first analyzing the underlying process behind scientific controversies, and then examining the evidence using frame analysis of the actors involved. Results indicate: (1) in the case studies analyzed, scientific controversies proceed unresolved over a period of several years; (2) due to different modes of inquiry employed, there are often conflicting views among actors regarding the same issue; (3) the differences between these modes of inquiry are the result of differences in value and belief systems; (4) accordingly, frame analysis of scientific literature proves that conflicting evidence which sustains these scientific controversies is due to actors’ modes of inquiry.