Media and the Biotech Revolution
Dayna Watson
Just as a photograph gives only a fleeting glimpse of what it
intends to
capture, the international media gives people of the world a very
narrow view
of what the biotechnological revolution entails. Not only are there problems
with the way the biotechnological revolution is portrayed in the
media, there
is the monstrous task of getting adequate news coverage to keep
the people
well informed about the constant influx of new advancements. So what has the
media done to inform the average citizen? Is it plausible to assume that the
media has reported the facts fairly and without bias? No, it
isn't.
Journalists may preach to the world about a 'journalist's code of
ethics'
and about how they are trained to approach each news story as if
they have no
opinion on the matter.
Journalists pride themselves on objectivity. But, as
we all should be aware of, the news anchors on the five and six
o'clock news
are much more concerned about how much hairspray they can get in
their hair
than they are about whether the stories they report are
factual. The
nightly news is about appearance-how the reporters look and the
importance of
having a token human-interest story to show that the television
station or
newspaper has a compassionate side.
We must first separate two very different types of news coverage
in order
to critique what is and what isn't appropriate news coverage of
the biotech
revolution. Tabloid news
in the United States as well as in Europe is the
type of news that covers celebrity gossip, the controversies in
the British
monarchy, the American Presidency and other news directed towards
individuals
that wish to live vicariously through other people's (namely the
rich or
famous) lives.
When Madonna gets pregnant we all will be sure to find out from
the tabloid
news or the fluff news when, where and why it happened. Of course, I can
only speak from the perspective of an American, but this news is
not
journalism.
One problem with the way the public perceives the biotech
revolution is
that, according to Dr. Richard Lee, a communication law professor
at the
University of Georgia, "people believe the worst" from
news coverage. People
in general want the bad news first and the good news last. Although this
seems like a huge generalization, I myself have learned this
phenomenon from
each of my journalism professors who teach at the undergraduate
level.
Americans, specifically, read headlines on newspapers for the most
current
horror story. They focus
on extreme cases, on tragedies, catastrophes and
natural disasters. This
relates directly to the way many people feel
compelled to slow down to look at a bad car accident-no matter how
disturbing
the sight of blood may be, we often feel compelled to look. This concept is
what fuels tabloid news.
People who call themselves journalists (but who
clearly have no journalistic merit) use this
look-at-the-bad-car-accident
phenomenon to their advantage by dramatizing or 'sensationalizing'
news
stories.
The second type of news coverage, hard news, is the
biotechnological
revolution's best hope for getting accurate, straightforward
information out
to the public. But there
is a problem with news coverage as well.
The
journalists that are qualified to report on important subjects such
as the
biotech revolution are usually ill informed about technological
advancements.
Why don't journalists have the pertinent information they need to
report on
scientist's findings?
Most of the news that ends up on television and in world-renown newspapers
is
news that is provided to journalists through public relations
representatives
of individuals or organizations.
For presidential elections, each candidate's public relation (PR)
spokesperson provides up-to-date information on the candidate's
scheduled
public appearances and political platform. Journalists receive faxes,
e-mails and phone calls from PR representatives and form their
stories
directly from this information.
In most cases, the newspaper or news station
will replace the PR representative's name with their own and run
the story as
if they, the journalists, actually wrote it. Journalists, in many cases, are
not even responsible for writing their own news stories.
In any other professional field, this would be seen as plagiarism,
but in
the field of journalism it is an intrinsic part of the
business. The news
stories are largely produced by organizations and individuals who
have enough
money to keep public relations in their budgets.
Because many of the people (scientists, governments, etc.) who are
in the
biotech field are using all of their dollars on biotech research
and
development, they have little money left to campaign for public
support.
Scientists are scientists and they typically do not have the means
or the
ability to get their findings into a hard news story. The few journalists
that do get their hands on a biotech story are tabloid journalists
who
sensationalize the effects of a biotech revolution.
For example, The Washington Post ran a feature story on Jesse
Gelsinger, an
18-year-old who was the first person to die in the United States
from
experimental gene therapy (Washington Post Sept. 18, 2000). Gelsinger had a
rare liver disease that made him extremely susceptible to high
ammonia levels
and was chosen to participate in a University of Pennsylvania
study under the
care of lead scientist James Wilson. The Washington Post reported
that a Food
and Drug Administration investigation after Gelsinger's death
"found numerous
regulatory violations by Wilson's team, including the failure to
stop the
experiment and inform the FDA after four successive volunteers
suffered
serious liver damage prior to the teen's [Gelsinger's]
treatment."
"In addition, the FDA said Gelsinger didn't qualify for the
experiment
because his blood ammonia levels were too high just before he
underwent the
infusion of genetic material," said a reporter for the Washington Post. The
lawsuit filed by the Gelsinger family reveals business affairs
that "clouded
the judgments of the university, the medical dean and Wilson. Both
the
university and Wilson had equity stakes" (Washington Post
Sept.18 2000).
When the public heard about Jesse Gelsinger, the biotechnological
revolution
suffered greatly.
Scientists lost public support, morale, and monetary
donations for further funding because they heard of the
consequences instead
of the benefits of biotechnology.
The truth is that there are clear benefits of the biotechnological
revolution. Scientists now have a clearer picture of the Human
genome and can
begin to identify genes that cause hereditary illnesses. Scientists can
genetically engineer foods with additional nutrients and help to
develop an
existence based on sustainability. We can live longer, healthier, more
productive lives and possibly avert death by using artificial
intelligence.
But first we have to get all these wonderful ideas and information
out to the
public before the anti-genetic engineering watchdog groups voice
their own
concerns.
Anti-genetic engineering groups, some of which include the Christian
Coalition and a number of large insurance companies, have
certainly been
heard around the world because they have the money to publicize
their
message. The biotechs,
however have countered back with an extensive
campaign to inform people about their work. Dr. Jane Rissler,
senior
scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an anti-biotech
watchdog
group said, "I suspect that many scientists are quite worried
that this
technology, which is the star to which they have hitched
their wagon, will lose support.
This, in fact, coincides with the industry's
own $50 million a year campaign to rally public opinion in this
country" (A
Call For Biotechnology…July 2000).
If the bio-tech industry is spending $50 million trying to get
public support
then why isn't the public getting the message?
The greatest media obstacle currently facing the bio-tech
revolution is the
debate over the use of human embryos in medical research. A public relations
campaign to override the heartfelt opinions of millions of people
would be
nearly impossible in the United States. You cannot change opinions in public
relations, but you can make changes go over more smoothly in the
public eye.
So, the way to secure hope for continued research is to not use
the media at
all. You cannot market the
use of human embryos with a smile on your face
and expect the people to bow down and agree to your pitch. Biotechs would,
instead, be best suited using a great deal of the budgeted $50
million to
support a pro-biotech candidate for presidency, cross their
fingers and pray.
For additional information:
A Call for Biotechnology to Be Used for the Developing World By
CAROL KAESUK YOON (July 2000)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30464-2000Sep18.html