Should we blame the media? Many scientists believe that the press and
broadcast media is responsible for the turmoil in public understanding and
confidence in science. I don't take this view but the treatment of today's
"cloned cows are younger" story provides food for thought.
The story is the possibility that cloned animals (cattle in this case), will
live longer and derives from a paper in "Science" published by the AAAS. The
treatment by the Daily Telegraph (DT: circulation about 1 million) and the
Guardian (G: about 0.5 million) is very different from that of the Daily
Mail (DM: 2 million plus).
The Telegraph (front page) and the Guardian emphasise at headline level that
the science provides "treatment hope for Alzheimer's victims" (DT) and "may
hold the key to treatment of heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's" (G). These articles are straight public science and make quite
clear the uncertainties in the research. The Daily Telegraph article by
Roger Highfield ends with a simple statement about ethics:
"The Nuffield Council on Bioethics says the potential benefits of
[therapeutic cloning] outweigh ethical concerns."
The Guardian article (the FT.com archive does not cite the author) ends with
a web link:
"Special report on the ethics of genetics at www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/
ethics"
The treatment by the Daily Mail is very different. James Chapman's front
page article covers the science just as well. But it takes a different
approach to the story. One headline is:
"New furore as scientists discover they have reversed the ageing process in
six cloned cattle."
Chapman reports that "The unexpected discovery ... has sparked a furious
debate over the medical and ethical implications of cloning technology." And
there are quotes from concerned geneticists, the charity Life and the Roman
Catholic Church. But the majority of the article is indistinguishable from
the Daily Telegraph and Guardian texts. Its just the "furore" that is
different.
Chapman's article is followed by useful questioning article by David
Menache, "President of Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine." It
needs reading in full (sorry, I can't find it on line) but David's main
point is:
"We should recognise a harsh truth. Our ignorance, as we stand on the brink
of a brave new world of cloning [etc.] ... is overwhelming and the spectre
of disaster looms over it ... Unless we act now, the brave new world we
inherit will be a morally ugly and scientifically dangerous place"
So, not for the first time, the same story is treated differently. The story
is based on very uncertain science based on a surprising empirical
observation but newspapers package it differently. The Telegraph and
Guardian report the science and the hopes. The Daily Mail has incorporated
the story into the broader debate and if you are going to generate debate,
you need "attitude." Andre Menache supplies the attitude.
So, post-Jenkin, which approach is better? The Daily Telegraph/Guardian or
the Daily Mail?
And, noting that many members of psci-com are outside the UK, how has your
domestic media covered this discovery, if at all?
Andy Boddington
NB: The Daily Telegraph article is available from ft.com for $1.50, as is
the Guardian article (free). I can't find the Daily Mail on line.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|