In 2006 the South Korean cloning expert Woo Suk Hwang was found guilty of fraud and scientific misconduct. The scandal was reaching far beyond Hwang’s own laboratory encompassing national pride, geopolitics and regional discussions of stem-cell research. But the HIn 2006 the South Korean cloning expert Woo Suk Hwang was found guilty of fraud and scientific misconduct. The scandal reached far beyond Hwang’s own laboratory, encompassing national pride, geopolitics and global discussions of stem-cell research. But the Hwang affair was also a case of fierce competition between two of the world’s leading scientific journals. Individually, Science and Nature used the Hwang affair and their unique positions to air specific and conflicting agendas resulting in completely different narratives as the scandal unfolded. In Science, where Hwang’s fraudulent papers were published, the readers learned about a caring and concerned South Korean research director. Science was true to this narrative over a two-year period until finally, around Christmas 2005, there was no longer any doubt about Hwang’s misbehaviour. In Nature, on the other hand, Hwang was, from the very beginning, treated with suspicion and framed as a cynical director of a cloning factory. Media studies of science and technology tend to focus almost exclusively on how this framing process works in the mass media and ignore that this process is already well under way in scientific journals that then feed into mass media news stories. Thus the news coverage of the Hwang affair in Science and Nature demonstrates that these two leading scientific journals frame their news stories in important ways that reflect (and are reproduced by) mass media reporting.