A science story’s bark is often worse than its bite. So found Dr Alan Petersen from Murdoch Sociology when investigating the portrayal of genetics in the media.
Trawling through newspapers and popular science magazines such as New Scientist, Nature, Science and Scientific American, Dr Petersen has spent the past few years identifying ways that public definitions and opinions about genetics are constructed in the media.

He found that both scientists and journalists played a role in structuring the arguments presented in newspapers and magazines.

For example, scientists tended to use PR experts to promote their research, and would release their findings in the context of a conference or official launch.

Journalists would pick up topics that could create a sensation without needing much detail.

For example, Dr Petersen found media interest was often sparked by the discovery of single genes, generally ignoring the possibility that environmental influences or multiple gene effects could play a part.

Behavioral genetics tended to dominate in news, touting discoveries such as ‘gay genes’, ‘bald genes’ or ‘bad behavior genes’.

“Headlines created a constant sense of anticipation, as though we were always on the edge of a major breakthrough,” he said.

However, it could still be years before these ‘breakthroughs’ leave the laboratory.

The emphasis on the sensational aspects of genetic research may have been due to articles being pitched for the first 10 pages of the newspaper.

“Stories were full of hope and promise, and failures are few and far between,” he said.

Dr Petersen believes this attitude is due to scientists promoting genetics as a therapeutic science such as the preventative applications from the human genome project, hoping to dispel earlier associations with eugenics.

“Genetics can be a very emotive issue as it is essentially redefining what it means to be human,” explained Dr Petersen.

During the research Dr Petersen discovered that in some cases, the editor is the only checking point before publication.

“Journalists usually only quoted one source, suggesting that the reported information was not presenting a particularly balanced view,” he said.

“Despite the lack of checks, there appears to be a distinct lack of attention to correcting published information.”

Dr Petersen is now writing a book with a UK colleague Robin Bunton, about the ‘new genetics’ and public health, due to be completed later this year.