© 1998 by Oxford University Press
For some scientists, it has become an all-too-familiar scenario -- months in an all-out sprint with a rival group to isolate a disease gene, your team's victory, the press release -- and then the moment of triumph is boiled down to a two-sentence blurb in the B section of a newspaper.
In the late 1990s, cloning a gene is clearly no longer the fodder for media frenzy that it was in the 1980s. Today, most gene discoveries seemingly go unnoticed by the press, or those that do garner some attention often are so condensed on the back pages of the newspaper that the scientific implications of the finding are lost.
But, according to many journalists, there are several reasons for the demise of the front-page gene story. At the top of the list is simply the explosion of gene discoveries in recent years. In 1986, when even localizing a disease gene was worthy of front-page coverage, the roster of genes that had been positionally cloned -- found without knowing where or what to look for ahead of time -- stood at three. In 1998, this number has ballooned to 98. At the same time, scientists have mapped tens of thousands of other human genes to their actual or approximate location in the human genome.
"There is literally something every week," said Sue Goetinck, Ph.D., who reports on science and health for the Dallas Morning News. "If you take Nature Genetics, Science, and Nature, at least every month or maybe even several times a month, there is another gene for another syndrome. It is not that big an accomplishment to isolate a gene anymore. Not that it is easy -- it still takes work -- but it is not that monumental."
Especially when one considers some of the monumental science stories that have broken within the last few months. These include the cloning of mice, cows, and possibly people; a new plan to sequence the human genome in 3 years; anti-angiogenesis cancer drugs eradicating tumors in mice; and tamoxifen preventing breast cancer.
Losing Face
But some reporters note that the gene hunt has begun to lose its human face, a key component in conveying to readers the trial-and-error drama of gene discovery. "A lot of the genetic stuff has become so mechanized, and that has taken out the cool discovery part of science," said Karen Watson of Discovery Channel Online in Bethesda, Md. "It is all becoming heavy-duty processing. You know, it is a story that they are so automated -- but that is really it."
Journalists also point out that most of the genes found these days are involved in obscure syndromes with torturous, polysyllabic identifiers that are harder to pronounce than the names on a Russian hockey team. "Many of the genes and the conditions for which they are associated are so rare or foreign to most people that they just are not newsworthy," said Richard Saltus, who has covered science and health for the Boston Globe for nearly 20 years.
But as Saltus and others stressed, another reason for the rise-and-fall of the front-page gene story is reporters now are more sophisticated in their coverage of genetics. As with scientists in the laboratory, journalists also now have a better appreciation for the complexities of genes and human inheritance. No longer are they as wide-eyed and willing as they were in the 1980s to say that just because a gene has been isolated, genetic testing or gene therapy are just around the corner.
"There now is a certain sophistication to the reporting," said Watson. "I think what you are seeing is just the evolution, both within the science itself as well as within the reporting and interpretation. And the bottom line is it is just really complicated."
Though most gene stories now are considered more noteworthy than newsworthy, some reporters stress that they personally are still very interested in the flow of discovery making its way into the scientific literature. "The fact that we do not always give prominent play to every scientific discovery does not mean that we have a lack of interest," said Paul Recer, who has covered science for the Associated Press since the mid-1960s. "It means that we evaluate the finding on how well it will be published by the 1,500 newspapers that take the AP. It is just a matter of news judgment."
Increasingly that news judgment is placing gene discoveries as longer and more in-depth stories, rather than breaking news. Roger Sergel, senior editorial producer for the ABC News Medical Unit, said ABC News and its network competitors have made a more concerted effort in recent years to understand the implications of finding a gene, not just reporting that it has been found. Last summer, for example, Sergel and his ABC colleagues produced a 1-hour special on progress in cancer research that tackled tough concepts such as the genetic basis of cancer, DNA repair, and the molecular profiling of tumors.
Big Picture
"It isn't that we can't do gene stories, but we have to get a better handle on the big picture," he said. "At ABC News, we can respond day-by-day to stories, but the bar will keep getting placed higher as the science advances. However, we also have places to put things in context, programs such as Nightline, news magazine pieces, or one-hour specials, where we have the time and opportunity to take things that really are very important in science and explain to people why this is so important to their lives."
For print journalists, the time and opportunity comes in longer feature stories. Often these stories will highlight trends rather than individual findings. For example, a feature gene story might highlight the isolation of not one but a group of genes involved in Alzheimer's disease, and then plot out the direction researchers will likely take to understand how these genes work. "I keep files on different diseases or areas of research," said Goetinck. "If I see a press release or tip sheet item, I will stick it in there. When the time comes to write the roundup story, I will go back the file."
Newly isolated genes, packaged as breaking or feature news, are also making their way onto the Internet at health and discovery sites, such as Discovery Online, ABC.com, msNBC, and OnHealth.com. But in the new and unregulated world of the Internet, the quality of coverage is variable. "Online reporting is very much in its frontier stages," said Watson, whose Discovery Channel Online site has 100,000 hits daily. "There is a lot of room to grow and mature. But it is a very exciting time because I think the Internet is a great place to tell science stories because you can use other media to help explain what can be really complicated. It also has the space to do it."
-- Bob Kuska
The Rise and Fall of The Front-Page Gene
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||