|
|
| Volume 46, Number 3, Winter 1998-99 |
by Suzanne Clancy
Recent advances in stem cell cultivation, cloning of mammals and the Human Genome Project have pushed genetic research to the forefront of public consciousness, revealing both fears and hopes about future applications of the technology.
“The public has an insatiable desire to know more about genetics. It grips them,” observed Theodore Friedmann of the University of California, San Diego, participating in a panel discussion at a AAAS symposium on genetics, the media and public perceptions. (see below)
The media’s response has earned mixed reviews from both scientists and journalists. In general, both groups regarded the content of general media stories favorably, but harbor concerns about presentation, particularly hyperbolic headlines and grisly graphics. Charles Epstein, of the University of California, San Francisco, pointed to a recent Economist cover depicting DNA as weighty chains and photographs in Time magazine that portray researchers as “omnipotent masters of science fiction movies.”
Epstein and Friedmann stressed that scientists share responsibility for the way their work is represented.
“We, as scientists, need to listen to what is said and to respond positively and not defensively to public concerns,” remarked Epstein. “We need to do a much better job of this, and we need the help of the media to do it.”
Friedmann said that in his own field, gene therapy, coverage was reasonably accurate until the early ’90s, when a few high-profile stories led to a media frenzy in which “everybody was at fault.”
“Scientists were making claims about clinical efficacy, institutions such as the NIH needed to please their constituents in Congress, and public advocacy groups very much wanted to see these techniques work,” he said. “It was not a conscious conspiracy by any means, but nevertheless much of the resulting coverage led the public, and physicians, to believe gene therapy was about to reach the clinic when a good deal of basic work remained.”
Pilar Ossorio, a molecular biologist and attorney with the American Medical Association, faulted institutions that encourage researchers to say things that will attract attention. She indicated awareness of “at least one university that uses a formula for academic advancement based in part on column inches written about a faculty member’s research and how much that space would have cost the institution in advertising.”
Such organizational pressures make it imperative for reporters to be critical and seek out multiple sources. Doug Levy of USA Today urged journalists to “question authorities and find out who else is out there doing similar work.” He also suggested that writers “develop expertise in specialty fields.”
The need for editorial balance was addressed by Ted Peters, from the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley. Peters once received a call from a prominent evening news program asking if he was “for” cloning. Peters asked if the reporter meant research on cloning that may lead to organ replacement and other applications, or the cloning of human beings.
“(The reporter) was quiet and then said, ‘I don’t know. I just need to find a religious person for cloning, and I’ve called all around and can’t find one.’”
Not just reporting but the illustrations that accompany stories can convey an alarmist tone to cloning coverage.
“The dominant image is always mass production of humans,” said Patrick Hopkins, a professor of philosophy at Ripon College in Wisconsin. Epstein added that there frequently appears to be “something malevolent about DNA,” and the images suggest that “its impact is unavoidable.”
Ossorio pointed to a cover of Life magazine on which a bold blue and yellow strand of DNA looms over a list of words in markedly paler versions of the same colors. The list includes “aggression, obesity, and optimism.” She also quoted from a daily newspaper story, “From a geneticist’s standpoint, he was an alcoholic,” and commented that the meaning of genetic predisposition is often distorted. “(It is) treated in the popular press and the law like water building behind a dam.”
According to Peters, such coverage feeds into people’s fears of what he terms “puppet determinism,” which assumes that our natures are dictated by the content of our DNA. The flip side of the deterministic coin, “Promethean determinism,” is often referred to as fear of “playing God.” In the current scenario, nature is substituted for Zeus, and we are afraid he will kick us if we push too far.
The social conflict inherent in taking control of our reproduction has surfaced in an arena of public debate that, to date, has been side-stepped by the media, asserted Margaret Wertheim, Los Angeles-based author of Pythagoras’ Trousers, a history of science and religion.
“There will be many tests that can turn up incurable diseases for which there is no treatment but abortion,”she said. “How are we going to reconcile this with the fact that we have a large and vocal religious right that vigorously seeks to overturn the legality of abortion?”
Social attitudes about genetics are also influenced by the history of race relations in our society and understandable concerns about eugenics.
“Race is often the unspoken fear surrounding behavioral genetics,” said Ossorio. “Historically, value judgments have been attached to genetic differences and the media play into and play off of the background narrative. We would probably do well to make what is implicit explicit. We might be able to have more thoughtful and friendly discussions.”
Finally, Wertheim observed an intriguing omission in the cloning coverage. “In the wake of Dolly,” she said, “very little media attention was paid to the obvious implication that women could reproduce parthenogentically and get rid of men altogether—which I find very interesting.”
”Genetic Discoveries, the Media and Public Anxiety,” was presented 24 January 1999, during the AAAS annual meeting in Anaheim, CA
Suzanne Clancy is a science writer at The Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, CA