Waltham, Massachusetts
FROM the thousands of articles in peer-reviewed scientific and medical
journals, only a minuscule number get picked up by the media. Most scientific
breakthroughs that make front-page news only stay in the news for a day or two,
but a few get worldwide coverage.
On both sides of the Atlantic, there is close agreement on what constitutes a
鈥渂ig鈥� story. But does the science play the same way in different societies? In
my naivety, I expected the British and American press to have similar
presentations. I was wrong.
Advertisement
When Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute published his study in July
1993 (Science, vol 261, p 291), reporting a genetic marker for
homosexuality, it became big news. For a few days the study received worldwide
press attention. It made the front page in most American newspapers and was
treated as a significant piece of scientific research. The headlines ran 鈥淩eport
suggests homosexuality linked to gene鈥� (New York Times) or 鈥淕enes help
explain the origin of homosexuality鈥� (Boston Globe). Hamer鈥檚 scientific
findings were recounted in detail in a tone which was largely supportive,
despite some discussion of possible implications for good and bad.
The British press reported the story just as widely on the front page, but
the broadsheets gave the story a different emphasis. 鈥渀Gay gene鈥� raises
screening fears鈥� claimed The Times, 鈥淢yth of the gay gene鈥� asserted
The Observer鈥攁nd these were typical. The tabloids were even more
explicit, with The Daily Mail warning of 鈥淕enes, gays and a moral
minefield鈥�. Compared to their American counterparts, British writers seemed to
present less detail and more scepticism about the research. What was most
striking was the overwhelming concern they felt about the dangers of pregnancy
testing and termination. The framing of the story in the British press could be
termed 鈥渢he perils of the gay gene鈥�.
The story of the cloning of Dolly the sheep broke in February. This was
clearly the scientific breakthrough of the year. Yet not a single British
newspaper reported Dolly as a triumph for British science鈥攚hich it surely
was. The front-page headlines and stories moved quickly from sheep to people,
emphasising the 鈥減erils of human cloning鈥�. Newspapers issued a 鈥淲arning on human
clones鈥� (The Times), emphasised 鈥淭he spectre of a human clone鈥� (The
Independent) and grimly predicted 鈥淗uman clones in two years鈥� (The
Guardian). Frightening images of a look-alike generation of obedient
workers or superstar athletes, or of cloning brain-dead copies for spare parts,
were grist for news stories. It was as if the British press heard the footsteps
of Dr Frankenstein approaching.
The American press was more subdued and focused on the scientific
accomplishment. First-day headlines were less foreboding, with 鈥溞影稍�
reports first cloning ever of an adult mammal鈥� in The New York Times
and 鈥淐reated genetically equal鈥� in The Boston Globe. Many stories
bestowed accolades on the work of the Scottish researchers responsible for
Dolly, depicting it as a major breakthrough of a barrier previously considered
insurmountable and describing at length the techniques used.
While journalists discussed the thorny ethical and philosophical questions
that Dolly raised, they were not nearly so dire as their British colleagues in
their presentation. The New York Times announced temperately, 鈥淲ith the
cloning of sheep, ethical grounds shift鈥�, and emphasised that while human
cloning is a worry it is unlikely to be seen any time soon.
Two cases, of course, do not make a pattern. But there are hints of important
differences in reporting among science press cultures. The old stereotype of
optimistic Americans and pessimistic and sceptical Britons may reflect cultural
differences. It is certain that the British press reports its science with a
penchant for focusing on the dreadful implications for society. Perhaps editors
believe this is what sells newspapers.
It is interesting to speculate whether the framing of the stories may have an
impact on the public鈥檚 understanding of science. After all, most people pick up
a lot of modern science through the press. Such contrasting reporting poses
questions about what face of science is being presented to the public.
Of course, the press must be free to raise its concerns about genetic
science, and perhaps the American press is overly optimistic. But the British
press鈥檚 overwhelming emphasis on the perils may also be undermining the public鈥檚
ability to weigh up the prospects of new research鈥攁ffecting funding,
education and the future of science as a whole.