Genetics And The Media Research Paper

DNA is data without dimension, text without context, so that the equation of DNA with personhood requires a profound leap of faith. Yet, the gene as a solid source of identity holds media appeal. So too does the belief that the physical and behavioral traits of individuals, and the social and economic differences among groups are caused by inborn distinctions.

Genetic language has become a code in the media, readily applied and broadly understood. What is genetic is powerful, predictable, and permanent; ‘hard-wired’ in the human constitution. Underlying the notion of genetic destiny is the old idea of biological determinism: people are the way they are because they are born that way. This research paper reviews several themes conveyed by media gene talk:

(a) Genetic technologies provide the means to predict health and disease.

(b) Genes determine behavior and personality traits.

(c) Genetic research holds the promises of therapeutic solutions.

(d) But there are also potentials for abuse.

Following a brief description of these media themes, this research paper offers some reasons for the appeal of genetic stories. It suggests how the media coverage of genetics conforms to popular stereotypes and prevailing ideologies, and reflects the rhetorical skills of scientists who are eager to promote their work in the public arena. The paper concludes by suggesting some of the problems with the media message that health, behavior, personhood—indeed, life itself—can be defined in genetic terms.

1. Media Themes

1.1 Predicting Genetic Destiny

Genetics is a science of prediction. Scientists emphasize the predictive possibilities of genetics as they seek to convey the importance of their science as a way to identify predispositions. Using media-appealing terms, geneticists call the gene a ‘Delphic Oracle,’ a ‘time machine,’ a ‘trip into the future,’ a ‘medical crystal ball.’ James Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project, has announced in frequent media interviews that ‘our fate is in our genes.’

Such metaphors convey several messages: a definition of the gene as the basis of human destiny, an expectation that genetic research will enable the prediction of future disease, and a promise of therapeutic solutions. These messages are disseminated by a receptive press.

The media, for example, cheered the discovery in the mid-1990s of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that helped to explain many cases of familial breast cancer particularly among Jewish women of Ashkenazi descent. News headlines announced that scientists had found the gene causing breast cancer, some referring to the ‘breast cancer gene.’ They suggested that heredity is the major cause of breast cancer and that those found to have the gene were certain to get the disease. In fact, genetic factors contribute to only about 5 percent of all breast cancer cases, and even among those with a BRCA gene, modifying factors, including diet and genetic variables, may limit the predictive power of the genetic diagnosis. But widespread publicity, according to former Director of the National Institutes of Health, Bernadine Healy, created an ambience of ‘medical bookmaking and fortune telling’ that was devastating for women who believe they are at risk (Healy 1997).

Joseph Alper describes the media coverage of genetics as OGOD (One Gene One Disease) reporting (Alper 1996). When journalists report on the discovery of disease genes, they tend to minimize the complex, multicausal, and poorly understood sources of the genetic mutations that lead to disease. They are responding to the public desire for simple causal explanations. But Steven Rose (1995) describes genetic predictions as faulty reductionism based on ‘reification, arbitrary agglomeration, improper quantification, misplaced causality, and dichotomous partition between genetic and environmental causes.’ Similarly, Philip Kitcher (1997) describes how journalists tend to leap from an association of genes with particular conditions or traits to the attribution of genetic causation. Correlations turn into causes in the press.

Gene discoveries are newsworthy, but qualifications and disconfirmations are ignored. Studying the media reports about the causes of mental illness, Peter Conrad (1999) finds only limited coverage of inconsistent and contradictory information. The media message is rather that genes are destiny and the gene for mental illnesses will eventually be found. Science, however, is provisional and scientists routinely disconfirm their claims. These disconfirmations, like failed experiments, are important to the methods of science, but they are not regarded as news.

1.2 Genes Determine Behavior

Encouraged by the enthusiastic media response to research in medical genetics, behavioral psychologists in the 1990s began to extend the notion of genetic determinism to the inheritance not just of diseases, but of complex behavioral conditions and personality traits.

Such complex attributes as shyness, obesity, directional ability, aggressive personality, caring tendencies, exhibitionism, homosexuality, dyslexia, job success, arson, traditionalism, preferred styles of dressing, tendencies to tease, political leanings, religiosity, criminality, intelligence social potency, and zest for life have all appeared in media accounts as if they are simple Mendelian disorders, directly inherited like brown hair or blue eyes. Behavioral characteristics, once viewed in psychological or sociological terms, are now framed through genetic lenses (Alper and Beckwith 1993).

Seeking provocative and controversial copy, journalists have focused attention on claims attributing antisocial behavior to biological predisposition (Conrad 1997). There is violence, homelessness, alcoholism because people have genes that predispose them to aggression, depression, or alcoholism. Journalists refer to ‘bad seeds,’ criminal genes,’ and ‘alcohol genes.’ To a New York Times writer, ‘evil is embedded in the coils of chromosomes that our parents pass to us at conception’ (Franklin 1989).

Journalists are also attracted to controversial theories about genetics and intelligence. In the 1970s, the dispute over Arthur Jensen’s claims about the relationship between race and IQ attracted considerable media attention. Two decades later, the similar claims by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Cur e again attracted an attentive press. Media interpretations of these studies, however, were more guarded than most reports on genetics.

Snyderman and Rothman (1988) saw the media as strongly biased against genetic explanations of intelligence, favoring arguments based on nurture or nature. Yet the coverage of the genetics and IQ debates has been extensive and the repeated articles about books like The Bell Cur e disseminated their ideas very widely and ultimately served to amplify their importance.

In the 1990s, the media disseminated the claims about the genetic basis of behavior that were generated by studies of identical twins reared apart. These were controversial studies that often appeared in the media well before they were published in peer-reviewed journals. Offering a simple explanation of complex behavior and a reinforcement of prevailing stereotypes, this research attributed an extraordinary range of behaviors to ‘the genes.’ US News and World Report (April 13, 1987) published an authoritative-looking table providing precise percentages of how much personality traits were determined by heredity rather than culture: extroversion 61 percent, conformity 60 percent, worry 55 percent, creativity 55 percent, optimism 54 percent, and so on.

In the same issue, US News published an article called ‘How Genes Shape Personality,’ claiming that ‘solid evidence demonstrates that our very character is molded by heredity.’ It suggested that the future of Baby M, the child in a controversial surrogacy dispute, may not rest on which family got her, but in her genes. In 1992, Time was still offering the time-worn explanation of sex differences: ‘nature is more important than nurture’ and it is just a matter of time until scientists will prove it (January 20, 1992).

Media references to genetic influences draw on research in molecular and behavioral genetics, but they minimize the complexities of genetic and environmental interactions. They offer a distorting lens by ignoring the distance between the molecular level of genetic systems and actual behavior (Wilkins 1993). Beyond the curious notion that every quality has a gene, these media often convey a fatalistic and almost resigned attitude, for genetic predispositions appear to be immutable (Alper and Beckwith 1993).

One quantitative evaluation of magazine articles on genetics from 1919 to 1995 found a decreasing emphasis on genetic determinism over time (Condit et al. 1998). However, the way genetics is reported in the media of the 1990s suggests a retreat from the myth of ‘can do’ optimism that once led to the notion that every child could be president. The old story about those who make it despite difficult social circumstances is no longer a mystery. Genetic predisposition implies genetic destiny.

1.3 Biological Solutions

Good news, magic bullets, solutions, and cures appeal to public hopes and expectations. Journalists are strikingly optimistic as they cover the promise of ‘medical breakthroughs’ and ‘wonder therapies.’ Genetics claimed a journalist is ‘the medical story of the century which will dramatically cure cancer, heart disease, aging and much more’ (Rosenfeld 1992).

The media have welcomed every new claim about gene therapy with extravagant headlines and promotional hype as reporters convey—often uncritically—a wild array of futuristic scenarios presented by enthusiastic scientists. In the future, said a geneticist to DiscOver, ‘present methods of treating depression will seem as crude as former pneumonia treatments seem now’ (Wingerson 1982). In the future, said geneticist French Anderson to a Time reporter, ‘Physicians will simply treat patients by injecting a snippet of DNA and send them home cured’ (Time January 17, 1994). News headlines have promised: ‘Genetic research leaves Doctors hopeful for Cures,’ ‘New Hope for Victims of Disease.’ In a story called ‘the Age of Genes,’ US News reported that ‘advances bring closer the day when parents can endow children not only with health but also with genes for height, good balance, or lofty intelligence’ (Brownlee and Silberner 1991).

The development of pharmaceutical products and the proliferation of clinical trials on new therapeutic procedures have encouraged genetic optimism. The first official gene therapy experiment in 1990—the injection of cells containing ADA genes in a child with an immune system malfunction—became a major news event, touted as the arrival of ‘the long awaited era of genetic therapy’ (Culver 1991). The isolation of the colon cancer gene in 1993 prompted an enthusiastic scientist to tell a New York Times reporter of its implications: ‘deaths are entirely preventable’ (New York Times December 3, 1993). The media reports implied that gene therapy would allow doctors to ‘do something’ about devastating disease. But in fact, diagnostic capabilities have far outreached the possibilities of solutions.

The gap between the promise and the reality of gene therapy has led to increased ambivalence in media reports of genetics. While few questions are raised about the ultimate benefit of research or the credibility of scientific claims, reporters are expressing concerns about the growing availability of genetic information and its potential abuse.

1.4 The Potential For Abuse

Stories extol the benefits of research, but then decry the risk of gathering genetic information. We are told of the dawn of a new genetic era but then cautioned about an impending eugenic nightmare.

Ambivalence is especially apparent in the coverage of genetic manipulation. Jon Turney (1998) notes the continuous use of Frankenstein metaphors in the media. An illustration for a New York Times article (September 16, 1990) on gene therapy and the potential of genetic engineering featured a drawing imitative of the famous Edvard Munch painting, ‘The Scream.’ A figure stands, horrified, mouth ajar, eyes wide open, its hair a mass of coiled DNA. Media reports have often associated experiments in gene therapy with genetic engineering or ‘tampering’ with genes. ‘Lurking behind every genetic dream come true is a possible Brave New World nightmare’ says a Time reporter. ‘To unlock the secrets hidden in the chromosomes is to open up the question of who should play God with man’s genes.’ An accompanying image portrayed scientists balancing on a tightrope of coiled DNA (Dewitt 1989).

An important feature of these ambivalent media reports on genetics is their concern about the social and economic context in which this field is developing. The ties between the science of genetics and its commercial applications invite cynicism. Reporters call attention to the nonscientific interests—the investments and profits in this intensely competitive field. Science journalists, many of whom were once scientists themselves, have maintained an image of science as a pure and unsullied profession, a neutral source of authority, and an objective judge of truth. They are skeptical of corporate driven science. These days, according to some disillusioned journalists, biology has ‘lost its virginity.’ Scientists working in genetics are ‘greedy entrepreneurs,’ ‘gene merchants,’ or ‘molecular millionaires’ driven by economic interests that threaten their objectivity and override concerns about abuse (Nelkin 1995). Political cartoons portray geneticists in less than flattering terms as bumbling, naive, and unaware of the social implications of their discoveries. News reports and editorials repeatedly call attention to troubling aspects of the growing links between science and industry, the conflicts of interest that are inevitable when profits and ethics collide (Krimsky 1991). While the media have retained their history of genetic optimism, they are also expressing concern that expanding commercial interests will override important social considerations.

2. The Media Appeal Of Genetic Explanations?

The Human Genome Initiative has replaced the space program as a new frontier, the cutting edge of high technology exploration, and, just as in the heyday of NASA, journalists are receptive to the enthusiasm of their scientific sources.

The stories of the ‘gene of the week’ meet the immediate pragmatic needs of the press for sound bites, news-pegs, and events that will attract readers. The notions of genetic determinism offer relatively simple causal explanations of complex behavior—a welcome change from messy and uncertain social and environmental speculations. Genetic explanations conform to prominent cultural biases, intersecting with important American social values. Locating social problems within the individual, they support the ideology of individual responsibility. They are consistent with faith in scientific and technological progress. The status of the gene as a deterministic agent, a blueprint for life, offers certainty, predictability, and control. By promoting genetic explanations of behavior, however, the media are using the imprimatur of science to support a particular world view. They do so with little attention to the substance of science and the limits of theories purporting simple explanation of complex human conditions.

The appeal of genetics to the media largely reflects the promotional efforts of scientists themselves, for journalists rely on scientific sources for information. Scientists seek media coverage as a form of public relations, regarding public visibility as a means to attract funds for their research and support for their priorities (Shinn and Whitley 1985). They have become skilled in rhetorical strategies designed to attract media attention. Using media-ready metaphors, they have described the genes as ‘master molecules’: we are but ‘readouts’ of our genes. They describe the body in deterministic terms—as a set of instructions, a blueprint, a map, or a program that is transmitted from one generation to another. They suggest that by deciphering the text, classifying the markers on the map, and reading the instructions, they will unlock the key to human ailments and human nature, revealing the secrets of human life. Geneticist Walter Gilbert, introduces his public lectures on gene sequencing by pulling a compact disk from his pocket and announcing to his audience: ‘this is you.’ Scientists, he claims, will ‘provide ultimate answers to the commandment, know thyself’ (Gilbert 1990).

The biotechnology industry has further encouraged media hype about gene therapy. The industry has made a major financial commitment to gene therapy, expecting this will be the basis of future medicine. Over 60 percent of gene therapy studies are directly financed by industry in anticipation of a profitable market in the near future. Corporate advertisements announce ‘a great leap in the treatment of disease,’ and promise ‘a healthy future one gene at a time.’ Corporate and university press releases are inclined to turn tentative experimental findings into magic bullets. An advertisement appearing in sports magazines said it all: ‘Bad Genetics? Use Opti-genetics—The first genetic optimizer.’

When they report on complex scientific issues, journalists do not create science news; they mainly amplify and disseminate the messages provided by scientists themselves. They are seldom critical, responding with untempered enthusiasm to promotional hype especially when packaged in accessible media friendly terms. However, the surfacing of hereditarian beliefs, their media appeal must be examined critically, for such beliefs have practical implications for both individual choices and social policies.

3. The Growing Power Of The Gene

Tracing the history of popular images of genetics, Van Dijck (1998) has documented the changing metaphors that correspond to various stages in the development of this scientific field from the new biology of the 1970s to the rise of the biotechnology business and the Human Genome Project in the 1990s. At each stage, she says, ‘performers’—scientists, journalists, and public relations people shape the media discourse (Van Dijck 1998).

Nelkin (1995) found considerable media skepticism in the 1970s when journalists wrote about the ‘runaway science of genetic engineering.’ But by the 1980s, gene splicing became a ‘race toward better human health.’ Today, genetics is the ‘technological frontier.’ Journalists describe geneticists as pioneers, ‘unlocking the basic laws of nature,’ discovering the ‘secrets of life,’ solving the problems of devastating disease. Genomic researchers are ‘riding the DNA trail.’ Geneticists are ‘relentless hunters of genes,’ involved in a ‘race’ to find the markers for disease. Media accounts in the 1990s have been reverent—almost religious: a 1994 cover of Time depicts a figure on a pedestal, his arms extended in a Christlike pose, his torso inscribed with a double helix. The caption reads:‘Genetics—The Future is Now.’ The image, of course, is the Ascension. Though simply a biological entity, the gene in the media has assumed cultural significance extending far beyond its scientific meaning.

The media are mainly promotional, yet they are increasingly conveying mixed messages about the costs and benefits of biotechnology. Journalists seem to welcome the notion of biological determinism— simple, seemingly certain, and easy to convey—yet many writers remind their readers of the history of eugenics and place current research in this threatening historical context. While journalists report with enthusiasm and wonder the promises of gene therapy, they also warn about potential abuses of genetic manipulation.

Why should we be concerned about media images? Common and recurring media images provide insight into beliefs that are deeply embedded in society— beliefs that shape the questions of concern to scientists and the public appropriation of scientific findings. The media portrayal of the powers of the genes can have a powerful influence. For science has long served as a cultural resource appropriated and interpreted to support social beliefs and to legitimate social policies (Nelkin 1999). The language of determinism not only reveals but also creates social attitudes. The sound bites and headlines (gay genes, obesity genes, aggressive genes) attract readers, but they also endorse certain modes of thought and explanations.

Media coverage of science and technology provides a useful window on public attitudes, but also has an important influence on public perceptions. The way people perceive research in human genetics—the way they interpret their costs and benefits—may be influenced less by the details of scientific evidence than by the repeated messages conveyed in the popular press. These media messages help to create the beliefs and assumptions that underlie personal decisions, social policies, and institutional practices.

Bibliography:

1. Alper J S 1996 Genetic complexity in single gene diseases. British Medical Journal 312: 196–7
2. Alper J S, Beckwith J 1993 Genetic fatalism and social policy. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 66: 511–24
3. Brownlee S, Silberner J 1991 The age of genes. US News and World Report November 4: 64
4. Condit C M, Ofulue N, Sheedy K M 1998 Determinism and mass media portrayals of genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics 62: 979–84
5. Conrad P 1997 Public eyes and private genes: historical frames, news constructions and social problems. Social Problems 44: 139–54
6. Conrad P 1999 Media images, genetics and culture. In: Hoffmaster B (ed.) Bio-Ethics in Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
7. Culver K W 1991 Splice of life. The Sciences 33(1): 18–24
8. Dewitt P E 1989 The perils of treading on heredity. Time March 20: 70
9. Franklin D 1989 What a child is given. New York Times Magazine September 3: 36
10. Gilbert W 1990 Current State of the HGI. Dibner Institute, Cambridge, MA
11. Healy B 1997 BRCA genes—bookmaking, fortunetelling, and medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 336: 1448–9
12. Kitcher P 1997 The Lives to Come. Simon & Schuster, New York
13. Krimsky S 1991 Biotechnics and Society. Praeger, New York
14. Lewenstein B U, Allaman T, Parthasarathy S 1998 Historical Survey of Media Coverage of Biotechnology in the United States. Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD
15. Nelkin D 1995 Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, rev. edn. Freeman, New York
16. Nelkin D 1999 Behavioral genetics and dismantling the welfare state. In: Rothstein M (ed.) Biology and Culture. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
17. Nelkin D, Lindee M S 1995 The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. Freeman, New York
18. Rose S 1995 The rise of neurogenetic determinism. Nature 373: 380–2
19. Rosenfeld A 1992 The medical story of the century. Longevity May: 42–53
20. Shinn T, Whitley R (eds.) 1985 Expository Science. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
21. Snyderman M, Rothman S 1988 The IQ Controversy. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ
22. Turney J 1998 Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics, and Popular Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
23. Van Dijck J 1998 Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. MacMillan, London
24. Wilkins A S 1993 Jurassic Park and the ‘Gay Gene’: the new genetics seen through the distorting lens of the media. The FASEB Journal 7(13): 1203–4
25. Wingerson L 1982 Searching for depression genes. Discover February: 60–4