Orchestrating a science ‘event’: the case of the Human Genome Project

Abstract

June 2000 saw the triumphal announcement of the completion of the human genome ‘working draft’. This attracted extensive, peak and vivid coverage. While several studies have explored media coverage of the announcement, there has been little discussion of the production process: the overall aims, values and structures which underpinned this staged event. This article redresses this gap and draws on ten interviews with UK journalists and their sources to show how reporting was influenced by a number of factors, including news values, organisational identity, the history of reporting and editorial interest. This paper thus gives valuable insights into how science stories are ‘made’ and presented in terms of the dynamics of coverage. It reveals the ways in which political and economic factors may drive a science story and provides crucial insights into the key relationships which influence and shape media reporting of scientific research.

Introduction

There has been ongoing and vigorous debate about the relationships between science, media and ‘the public’. The media operate at the interface between science/scientists and the social sphere/publics. They are thus a key site for exploring cultural images of science and its possibilities (Petersen, 2001), as well as being a key source of public information about medical research and policy (Miller et al., 1998). They also frequently attract intense lobbying by often conflicting sources (Henderson & Kitzinger, 1999; Philo, 1999). Indeed, the power of the media to define ‘public issues’ and the role played by the selective ‘framing’ and packaging of stories has been highlighted in other studies (see Allan, Anderson & Peterson, 2005; Anderson et al., 2005a, b; Hansen, 1994; Logan, 1991; Petersen, 2001). Scientists now show greater willingness or are perhaps under greater pressure to engage with media practitioners (Van Dijck, 1998). This does not, of course, necessarily correlate with how lay publics engage with science (Condit, 1999; Hargreaves & Ferguson, 2000). Indeed, we often know very little about how audiences interpret or use information concerning science events (Anderson, 2002).

Some of these debates have usefully been brought into focus by the story of the Human Genome Project (HGP). The international programme to sequence and map the human genome began in the mid-1980s and a ‘working draft’ announcement was made on 26 June 2000 with accompanying papers published in Science and Nature (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001; Venter et al., 2001). However, it was not until spring 2003 that the code was considered to be ‘fully cracked’ (Radford, 2003). In retrospect, the fanfare of publicity which was generated by the completion of the ‘first draft’ of the human genome can seem both ‘natural’ and inevitable. However, it is important to remember that human genetic research and the Human Genome Project in particular was not always considered to be newsworthy. Indeed in the mid-1990s, specialist science journalists had considerable trouble in persuading editors to take stories about human genetics (Kitzinger & Reilly, 1997).

Some studies have highlighted the extent of media coverage which was generated by the HGP announcement and detailed work has been conducted on the rhetorical strategies employed by policy makers and scientists (see Nerlich, Dingwall & Clark, 2002; Smart, 2003). There has, by contrast, been little discussion of the production process: the overall aims, values and structures which underpinned the staged event on 26 June 2000. This paper aims to redress this gap and asks the following questions: Why and how did the story of the HGP ‘first draft’ emerge in 2000? Why did this event attract such extensive coverage? What were the aims of key UK sources in terms of contact with journalists? What were journalists' perspectives on the process, including the degree of attention they gave to the announcement and the type of reporting they produced (e.g. their use of metaphors, narratives and frames)? Why did ELSIs gain such high profile in this coverage, relative to routine coverage? This paper addresses the key factors which influenced the timing of this staged event and shows how it was shaped to achieve specific economic and political goals.

Data and methods

This paper is informed by detailed analysis of media reporting of human genetic research for the year 2000.1 We also examined original press releases from key sources such as the Sanger Centre and the Wellcome Trust. In addition, we conducted ten tape-recorded interviews with those involved in the reporting. Interviewees were asked to reflect on their coverage of the human genome announcement, to contextualise that event within other more general coverage of genetic research, and to outline the constraints and pressures involved in reporting these types of issues. The interviews involved six newspaper and TV journalists/editors (four print and two broadcast journalists), a senior press officer from the Wellcome Trust, a Government Policy source and the main British Scientist involved in the story, Sir John Sulston, as well as one of the more critical voices cited in the Wellcome Trust press release, Tom Shakespeare. For reasons of confidentiality, the media personnel are simply identified by a code and their role, rather than by name, and identifying markers have also been removed from quotes to preserve anonymity. The interviews were mainly conducted by Lesley Henderson and all interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The sampling was designed to address a range of perspectives. For example, we included four specialist and two non-specialist reporters and interviewees were identified using our computerised database of reporting. Data were analysed using a variant of grounded theory and key themes were identified across the transcripts (see Green, 1998). Interviews with scientists and journalists from an earlier study of human genetics allowed us to map the trajectory of genetics news making over time (Kitzinger & Reilly, 1997).

Brief reflections on contours of coverage

The announcement of the completion of the human genome attracted intense coverage across the press and television news in the UK. This was also the case internationally (see Doring, 2005; Gogorosi, 2005). In a fanfare of publicity, the ‘first draft’ was portrayed as a watershed in history and depicted as promising great medical progress. UK newspaper headlines included declarations such as: ‘Gene code could beat all disease’ (The Sun, 26 June 2000) and ‘Cancer may soon be a thing of the past’ (Daily Express, 27 June 2000). Opening statements on television news bulletins included: ‘Scientists say they've finally unravelled the genetic blueprint of mankind. The biggest medical breakthrough for a generation could cure dozens of diseases’ (BBC, 9PM News Broadcast, 26 June 2000) and ‘Unlocking the genetic code. The breakthrough that's been hailed as the medical equivalent of putting a man on the moon’ (Channel 5, 6PM News Broadcast, 26 June 2000). The achievement was compared to the greatest moments of social, artistic and scientific ‘progress’. Analogies included not only the moon landing, but also the invention of the wheel, the ‘discovery’ of the ‘New World’, the revolutionary ideas of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, the artistic creations of Shakespeare and Bach. President Clinton was widely quoted stating, ‘We are learning the language in which God created life’. As many commentators have highlighted, the historical associations, the use of language and the range of metaphors employed often hyped the potential of the ‘breakthrough’ and implied an optimistic view of scientific progress (see Smart, 2003; Nerlich et al., 2002).

Our study of the profile of human genetic research across the whole year 2000 shows clear peaks around this event both in newspaper and television coverage (see Figs. 1 and 2 below). Both charts show significant increases in coverage between Monday, 19 June 2000 and Sunday, 2 July 2000. This peak represents 118 newspaper items (of 984 across the entire year) and eight main evening news bulletins (of 44 across the entire year) which concerned human genetic research.2

Figure 1. Graph showing the number of newspaper reports for each week during 2000.

Figure 2. Graph showing the number of TV reports for each week during 2000.

Yet peaks of coverage do not tell the full story. Indeed, in contrast to previous findings about earlier reporting of human genetics (e.g. Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Conrad, 1997, 1999) some media reporting did question the social value of genetic science and consider broader problems and implications. Headlines and the television news bulletin statements such as those quoted above can be contrasted with other more cautious reporting such as: ‘Barcoded at birth. Would anyone have let Beethoven do music if they'd known he'd go deaf?’ (Channel 5, 6PM News Broadcast, 26 June 2000); ‘Human genome: the future. Could this be the answer to all our ills? Or a sinister Pandora's box? (Daily Telegraph, 27 June 2000); and ‘The secret of life. The genome brings hope and fear’ (Guardian, 26 June 2000). As part of our larger study of media and human genetic research, our colleague Andrew Smart identified that over half of the press reports about the HGP announcement focused either primarily or partially on ethical, legal or social problems (Smart, 2003). The announcement, it appeared, placed some ELSI debates higher on the agenda than they had ever been before.3 Why should this be the case? How did the deliberate creation of a news event appeal to traditional news values and provoke such discussion?

The creation of a news event: science by sound bite?

The tension which existed between the publicly funded HGP and the private commercial US company, Celera Genomics, has been well documented (Marshall, 2001; Sulston & Ferry, 2002; Nerlich et al., 2002). Celera is regarded as having galvanised the HGP into what has been described as a ‘public draw’ or ‘marriage (perhaps encouraged by shotgun)’ (Jasny & Kennedy, 2001). Put simply, Celera used data which had been published by the HGP to supplement their own and refused to automatically give up patenting rights. Within the US, this acrimonious tale was played out between Dr Francis Collins, Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, and Dr Craig Venter, founder of Celera Genomics. However, this public battle had serious implications in a British context for the team at the Sanger Centre, Cambridge. Indeed, Sir John Sulston who led the research at Sanger became increasingly frustrated that Celera were, in his view, using the media to mislead the public. As he describes, ‘In January 2000 the company announced it had sequenced 81 per cent of the genome, and had combined this with the public data to produce 90 per cent coverage. The instant impression, to the uninitiated, was that Celera had done nine times as much as the HGP’ (Sulston & Ferry, 2002, p. 213).

Sulston expressed disbelief that the media were quite so reliant on Celeras' press releases and colluded in the creation of media ‘myths’ around the progress. For Sulston, this was a PR campaign that was entirely underpinned by economic rather than public interests. As he explains in interview:

[The media] were constantly giving Celera credit for being ahead whereas the only reason for thinking they were ahead were Celera press statements. First of all they are an industrial corporation and they had raised, in early spring 2000, one billion dollars on the stock market. Now that gives you a large amount of working capital. Furthermore when you've got yourself in that position you're going to defend it…. (Sulston, interview (6))

In Sulston's view, the sheer resources diverted to their media strategy (the company were believed to have hired a Washington-based PR corporation to represent their interests) allowed Celera to successfully set the agenda. In addition to this, Craig Venter proved to be extraordinarily ‘media savvy’. As Sulston describes, ‘Venter is just fantastic he is one of the worlds’ masters at publicity. There's no question at all.… He is good with the sound bites (Sulston interview (6)).

Indeed, the claims made by Craig Venter may have been disputed, the data were not made available for verification, so the accuracy and value of what Celera was producing was in some doubt, but it was widely acknowledged that Venter proved to be extremely adept at using the media. While the HGP proponents were trying to dissociate from this ‘race’, Venter was clear that this was a useful analogy. As he is quoted, ‘If one boat wins then the winner says “we smoked them” and the loser says “we weren't racing—we were just cruising”’ (Hawkes, The Times, 23 June 2000).

The role of the press teams in the UK: making a big splash

To facilitate reporting of the working draft, the press office team from the Wellcome Trust liaised with the Sanger Centre press office to co-produce a comprehensive and detailed press pack for journalists. As with any media event, the key aim was to ensure that reporting the HGP was made as easy as possible and ensure that the story made in their words ‘a big splash’. This press pack was despatched to targeted trusted journalists with whom the press office had an established relationship (partly to guard against the embargo being broken) about one week prior to the official announcement. It was then made available electronically for journalists to simply download from the Wellcome website on the day of the event. The pack offered a detailed guide to the project written in lay terms and drawing on vivid imagery and phrases which the team were keen that journalists would reproduce (e.g. ‘the information would fill two hundred 500-page telephone directories’; ‘Our DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzees’, Wellcome Trust, 26 June 2000).

Typical ‘questions and answers about the HGP’ and contextualising material such as historical time lines were used to illustrate the momentous nature of the event. Three case studies emphasised specific medical benefits of the Human Genome Project in terms of diagnosis and treatment (muscular dystrophy, skin disease and child birth defects) and gave a ‘human face’ to the science. These visual aids were aimed at ensuring that an overstretched press office was not deluged by journalists simply asking the same questions. Metaphors and analogies were developed in light of previous announcements as the press officer explains here:

The book of life, the book of humankind, the genetic book of humankind they're all phrases we used in the press pack or in the press conference. The first time the ‘book of life’ was used by us anyway was for the announcement of chromosome 20 sequence which was the first chromosome to be sequenced, or perhaps it was chromosome 22. That was done mostly at the Sanger and the heading was the ‘first chapter in the book of life’. It was just an analogy and we carried on using those types of analogies, the book and the chapters. (Senior press officer, interview (7))

It is interesting to note that these metaphors and analogies were not necessarily new; they developed from an existing repertoire and were included to promote a particular view of the science. Sometimes, however, metaphors and analogies can serve to increase rather than dispel confusion between scientists, media and the public (Nerlich & Clarke, 2003).

Shaping the coverage

An important part of this material was the inclusion of quotes from key scientists, crucial for busy journalists who may not have the time to contact individual scientists for comment. As the Wellcome press officer describes:

The (aim was) to get quotes from eminent scientists and people who could comment on it and make the life of the journalist much easier so instead of having to go and interview all of those people all of these (quotes) were up there for them so they could just cut and paste into their stories. When you look at the coverage you see that there's just so much repetition of the information. On a big thing like this everyone is trying to get hold of the same people so you do whatever you can to make their job easier. (Senior press officer, interview (7))

Making journalists' jobs ‘easier’ also, of course, maximises the chance of one's own preferred message gaining prominence; presenting quotations from selected scientists may, for example, reduce the likelihood that journalists will spend valuable time in following up their own leads with sources who may of course have different perspectives on the event.

Managing controversy, raising debate?

While it is perhaps obvious that press officers contacted expert interviewees such as scientists in advance of the announcement to ensure their availability the press teams were also keen to pre-empt problems of ‘hype’ or genetic determinism. The speeches by both Blair and Clinton highlighted the importance of ethical use of the knowledge created by mapping the human genome, and in short statements invited by the President both Venter and Collins spoke out about issues such as genetic discrimination and genetic determinism (Nerlich et al., 2002, pp. 449, 451). In his speech, Prime Minister Blair stressed that ‘the ethical and moral questions raised by this astonishing breakthrough are profound’ (cited in Nerlich et al., 2002, p. 452). The Wellcome Trust press officer underlined the importance of addressing the limitations as well as the potential of the science:

It's still to get to the stage where the medical benefits are flowing from it at a great rate so especially at this stage we didn't want to overemphasise on medical benefits and we are always really cautious not to over hype and try to say ‘eventually it will lead to’ and use phrases like that. (Senior press officer, interview (7))

The Wellcome Trust were equally concerned not to promote the fallacy of genetic determinism and in light of this the Trust explicitly sought out some dissenting interviewees who would act as a counterpoint to the scientists ‘to get some controversy in there’. The Head of Ethics at the British Medical Association and Professor Tom Shakespeare, the academic and disability activist, were invited to comment on the dangers and risks of HGP. Indeed, Shakespeare is quoted on the first draft announcement press release appealing that the announcement is kept in perspective. Here, he makes specific reference to achondroplasia that affects four members of his family, including himself:

Human beings are more than their genes. Knowing that I have a G to A transposition at point 380 of my FGFR3 gene doesn't explain my story. William Shakespeare still has more to tell us about human nature than genomics. (Wellcome Trust, 26 June 2000)

Shakespeare raised issues around the implications of genetic testing particularly for incurable disease such as Huntingdon's, highlighting the problems with insurance and genetic privacy. He expresses caution that the data could be used to reinforce inequalities. Yet, however critical this may appear, these sorts of statements were entirely manageable within the overall press launch. As the Wellcome press officer describes, ‘We do want science to be done in a responsible way and if it's being questioned by reasonable people then that's absolutely fine’. This, of course, implies that there is a hierarchy of dissenting voices and clearly Tom Shakespeare was considered to be a ‘reasonable’ opponent to the project aims. Indeed, he acknowledges that it is crucial for credibility that arguments against the HGP are presented in what is seen to be (by scientific organisations) a credible and reasoned way:

I am an academic. If you're in a pressure group you don't quite have that responsibility…. Some objections to the science are based on poor science. I have compromised my initial principles from engaging with scientists. I would look a prat if I went in and said what some people want me to say. (Shakespeare, interview (10))

He also spoke of the considerable pressure from journalists to act as a counterpoint to the host of scientists who were taking part in the press frenzy. As he describes, ‘I got more media requests than I could deal with. And the press wanted to hear the other side from the gung ho science, they wanted conflict, they wanted tension, they wanted argy bargy’ (Shakespeare, interview (10)).

The aims of orchestrating a ‘first draft’ announcement can be described as three fold: firstly, to address the patenting problem; secondly, to celebrate and promote genetic science; and finally, the event of course also marked an opportunity for Wellcome to restate their involvement in funding the HGP. This was a tightly orchestrated campaign where the source-journalist relationship which had been nurtured came into play. The central message was of ‘science as progress’, yet there was clearly some consideration of the potential for opposition. It was important to re-emphasise that the HGP information was not commercially restricted, in the words of the press officer ‘one of our key messages was that the information was free and publicly accessible so scientists all over the world can use this for the greater good’ (Senior press officer, interview (7)). The team were keen to distance themselves from the concept of a ‘race’, yet recognised that they were unable to prevent the event from becoming framed in precisely those terms. While acknowledging the careful stage management of the event, little was revealed about the background to settling on this particular date for launch. The choice of date was arbitrary, in the sense that the science was not ‘complete’, but in the view of the press officer ‘it was basically down to when the journal were going to publish it and they wanted to publish it as soon as possible and we had to adhere to that embargo’ (Senior press officer interview (7)).

Reporting the news event: the perspective of journalists

Interviews with journalists reveal a number of factors which impact upon reporting and the ways in which events of the HGP were guided by the constraints of production values within which media practitioners operate.

Timeliness

While the specialist science correspondents had been discussing the HGP amongst themselves for a matter of years, the draft announcement undoubtedly reinvigorated what many considered to be an ‘old’ story. The sheer scale of the event meant that the HGP was not now simply a niche story written about by expert journalists but was clearly of significant interest to a swathe of reporters, some of whom knew little of the background or context to the event. Indeed, one specialist correspondent remarked on what can be described as the ‘spiral of media interest’ and likened it to being an anthropologist when the first package tourists arrive. As he explains:

You're studying something rather obscure that you understand and a few other people understand and you try and write stories about it and suddenly other people arrive and the whole thing gets simplified and vulgarised. (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (4))

Others saw this as inevitable part of their role to bring stories to a new public. As one specialist reporter typically explained, ‘I don't want people who already know to be nodding their head sagely and say that was well done. Our job is to reach people who don't know and make them listen’. All of the key specialist science correspondents who were interviewed agreed that the event itself was a milestone despite being ‘incomplete’. As one specialist broadsheet editor describes:

The project as a whole was certainly the science story of the decade and then it becomes slightly arbitrary at what point you regard it as having been completed. The [event] was orchestrated for political and commercial reasons. The overall project was so important it had to be marked at some point. (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (8))

In the view of the specialist journalists, most of whom had considerable background knowledge of how the event had been planned, there was significant liaison between Francis Collins, Craig Venter and the NFI to secure an agreement to finish at the same time. Once this had been secured, then it was simply necessary to arrange a suitable date for completion. As one journalist outlines in the following quote, this date had little to do with the scientific work and everything to do with convenience:

People obviously had to look around and say ‘Well when can Nature and Science separately, but in the same week, announce the completion? When can Tony Blair and Bill Clinton be at joint press conferences in Washington and London? Even we were consulted. First of all someone from Science came over and had lunch with me to talk about how we would handle it. When would be a really good week to do it?… We had a briefing well in advance at the Sanger Institute from all sorts of scientists. We all went and sat there under strict embargo. What they were going to talk about, why they were going to talk about it what we should be thinking about, what to look out for. (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (2))

The event also provided the opportunity for science correspondents to indulge in a relatively rare occasion to celebrate science itself. One correspondent describes the pleasure of this:

You had the idea of the glory of the science itself which because I cover science I love so that was tremendous. There was also very much’ this is not an end in itself' and actually simply putting the papers in Nature doesn't actually get you very far. It is a great sheer glorious thing, after all this time, ‘whoopee!’ But as Sulston says ‘It wasn't finished’. It was an arbitrary date for publication. I mean the whole thing was hype. (Science editor, television, interview (1))

For the specialist journalists then, despite the ‘hype’ the announcement was shrouded in a ‘festival’ atmosphere in which it was difficult to be cynical because they had themselves played some role in building the story.

Editorial interest

Specialist science correspondents recalled their difficulty often in securing editorial interest for HGP-related news; however, now the story of the human genome was public knowledge and the HGP had become transformed into a major news event. Journalists do not operate in a ‘media free’ environment and are equally influenced themselves by associated media reporting. For example, one journalist was asked to write a piece on the HGP in response to his editor taking a holiday in America where the story was gaining momentum:

[The editor] had read some piece in the New Yorker which had probably taken six months to write, it was a very good piece but they are about 25,000 words long and it obviously came as a complete surprise to (him) who hadn't read anything I had written about it…. If the editor says he wants something I say, ‘Sure, I'll do it’ but (my report) hadn't said anything I hadn't said before.… Suddenly it's a big story and they are all over you and they want thousands of words with something you have been struggling to get into the paper for five years. (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (4))

By contrast, one journalist reported that his editor took a different view, considering that the involvement of Blair and Clinton more than hinted of an event which was ‘political hype’. Journalists are, of course, constrained by the ethos of the organisation via such editorial decisions. To the slight dismay of this journalist, ‘It was the biggest science story of the year but not on the day because we'd done so much leading up to it that it was actually very difficult sell it on the day’. As another journalist explains, ‘…I have to gauge what my audience thinks and most of all I have to gauge what my editor thinks’ (Science journalist, television, interview (1)). Clearly, journalists are constrained ultimately by editorial decision making and intertwined with this is the central consideration of how newsworthy a story might be for press and television news audiences.

The role of personalities

One reason that ELSIs gained such a high profile was because despite the efforts of the HGP scientists, the ‘battle’ between Venter and Sulston became a frame for reporting through which issues about information access, control and commercialisation were dramatised. Typical headlines included: ‘Scientists at war: two projects, two views of science’ (The Times, 23 June 2000); and the contrasting beliefs of the two key figures were highlighted in articles such as: ‘John Sulston: altruist or moralist? Craig Venter: maverick or monopolist?’ (Guardian, 26 June 2000) and ‘War veteran fights ex-hippie over “Book of Life”‘(Daily Telegraph, 27 June 2000). The ‘race’ gave a clear narrative structure to a potentially unwieldy story. It was believed by most journalists and certainly all of the specialists that this engaged the lay public in a gripping ‘story’. This was considered to be especially the case with British audiences who could identify with the often polarised positions of the British and American teams. Indeed, the juxtaposition of these two figures worked extremely well in terms of media values. Here, dramatic and cinematic values influenced news reporting.

You had two fantastic characters.… Craig Venter himself is very media savvy but comes across as a very different personality to an English audience…it was certainly very easy to set one against the other in cinema terms and word terms. I think in that case it was fair to do it because there were very different philosophies at work and Craig and John personified those two philosophies, especially to a British audience. (Science editor, television, interview (1))

Human interest ‘hooks’ commonly provided by patients are used to engage general readers in science stories (e.g. Henderson & Kitzinger, 1999). It is more rare, however, to personalise scientists and as one journalist comments, ‘Too many science stories don't really have personalities in them. Because of the characters, the race and Venter in particular, it meant that the coverage was more extensive than it would have been’ (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (3)). In many of the specialist journalists' view, it was important that the readers had a point of identification with the scientists involved, though it remains unclear whether audiences would be engaged by such wranglings or simply disinterested in ‘in-fighting’. Their role as specialists and possibly their identity as male journalists may also be a factor in this focus on battling scientists. One non-specialist, female journalist explicitly avoided mention of ‘the race’. She explains here, ‘Maybe the Guardian readership are fascinated by the battle between two big personalities, but I think my readers are more interested in what it means for them’ (General reporter, newspaper, interview (9)).

This reduction of the issues to personal antagonism was influenced by the operation of news values that rate conflict and ‘real’ people as more interesting than consensus and ‘impersonal’ organisations. On the one hand, it opened up the discussion to questions of funding, ownership and commercialisation that placed the science into its economic and political context. On the other hand, it was presented very much within science's own terms. As Tom Shakespeare reflected ‘The debate was presented as the “good guys” versus the “bad guys”. The scientists say, “Yes there are ethical concerns but not with us, Celera, they are the people to be anxious about. The old distancing effect” (Tom Shakespeare, interview (10)).

Journalists expressed little regret about using the personalities of Venter and Sulston in this way. Most saw it as a rare and welcome opportunity to engage in what was termed ‘a bit of glorious showbiz’.4 In this journalists' view, ‘[Venter] just knocked everybody dead. Even the people who don't like him were impressed because he's got bottle by the bucket loads…made even more thrilling…because evil capitalists were going to claim your genes (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (2)). In some respects then, this worked as a frame because it reflected a particularly British attitude to funding and science which went beyond political alliances.

Choice of language, analogies and metaphors

Metaphors and historical events were invoked to convey the importance of the Human Genome Project to lay audiences and to ‘ground’ the science, although journalists in interview sometimes expressed scepticism about the hyperbolic metaphors, ‘You've got the language of God, the sonnets of Shakespeare, the music of Bach. Everyone decided to go completely barking mad and say something outrageous’ (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (4)). However, they often used these analogies and metaphors in their reporting all the same. Journalists find such things useful because ‘science coverage needs as many reference points and comparisons as possible’ (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (3)). Many of the metaphors used in the media reporting can be directly traced to the press releases produced about the HGP by the Wellcome Trust and from the speeches made by Blair and Clinton (see also Nerlich et al., 2002, p. 455). However, this is not simply a one-way process. As described below:

I did actually stop one of the people from Wellcome and say, ‘Look when we did chromosome 22 you compared this to the invention of the wheel, how are you going to top that?’ and he said ‘Don't worry leave it to me’. Out of this came the immortal quote on the day itself ‘I was going to compare this to the invention of the wheel but then I thought to myself the wheel could be superseded by some other invention but not this’. (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (2))

The level of pre-announcement engagement between journalists and sources clearly is of interest when trying to explain how and why certain metaphors and analogies become prominent in the coverage.

Differences in reporting

Specialists vs. general reporters

The above analysis has generalised about the context in which journalists work; however, there are some important differences between journalists and not least is their role as specialist versus general reporter. Specialist journalists attempted to balance reporting between drawing out the implications of the research for wider publics while maintaining restraint in terms of what the science might deliver. The long-term experience of working in the field meant that these specialists were wary of over promoting the possibilities of the Human Genome Project research. As one typically commented, ‘I've covered genetics for so long and waited for genetics to do great things and it actually hasn't. A long time ago we were saying molecular biology will cure breast cancer and it still hasn't happened’ (Science editor, television, interview (1)).

In addition to this, many of the specialist journalists saw the HGP in terms of the ‘pure intellectual beauty of the science’ rather than implications and applications. As was explained, ‘People expect too much too soon. The human genome doesn't really make much difference to anyone's life yet’ (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (3)). This view was considered by general reporters to express the elitist stance of the scientists themselves, as one describes:

I asked [at the HGP launch], ‘What does this information being public mean for people on the street? The response was ‘well, it allows this research to be done and scientists to collaborate’. [Eventually] they said ‘cheaper prescriptions and more treatments for a wider diversity of diseases’. But that was quite difficult actually coaxing that out…. It's just not the level at which they are thinking. (General reporter, local tabloid newspaper, interview (9))

Journalists said that they were careful to avoid ‘over hyping’ the findings; however, there are clear tensions between this and the wish to make the science relevant to people's everyday lives and show how it might impact on their health in the future or the health of their children.

Formats

An additional key difference and influence on reporting is the medium in which journalists operate. For television, specialist journalists must report swiftly and accurately, but they believe their format constraints mean that audiences are rarely given the contextualising information that is possible with their counterparts working in the press (e.g. special pull-out sections in newspapers can provide readers with very detailed background material). ‘You can do a lot more science in print. Television is terribly bad at getting across the facts, you can get over impressions and feelings and sights and sounds. Facts are very difficult to convey especially if it's in a four-minute item’ (Science editor, television, interview (1)).

Television is also, of course, entirely dependent on pictures because without pictures ‘there's no story’. Television journalists described how this dependence on film meant that sometimes stories were more or less likely to attract coverage. For example, the Sanger Centre with its scenic grounds was considered to make ‘good pictures’ and the Sanger scientists were also regarded as ‘good television’. On the other hand, there are economic constraints (e.g. due to film costs it is unlikely that breakthroughs in America will receive as much coverage as if the same discovery was made in Britain or Europe).

Television was believed to be a particularly appropriate medium for human interest stories which so frequently provide the hooks for scientific research items. As a freelance reporter explained:

You've got some breakthrough and you need to put a human face to [it] so the job was to go out and not only get all the facts but also find a case study. You know, why it mattered. It was very hard because sometimes you have to find these people, very sick people and explain to them why they are not being used for entertainment of some kind. They would give the personal experience of ‘this is what it's like being sick’. (General reporter, television, interview (5))

Practical differences such as the amount of physical space of a newspaper can also present issues for journalists. As one describes, ‘We don't have as many pages so one has to be more concise, nor do we have such good graphics so I think the writing has to be more vivid. There is less opportunity to rely on the graphics or illustrations (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (3)).

Looking to the future?

The picture is complicated in retrospect by developments in both the science and its public profile. Since 2000, scientists realised that they had vastly overestimated the number of genes in the human genome, and the relationship between genes and proteins seems to be more complex than was previously thought (Nerlich & Hellsten, 2004). Many scientists now see the appropriate metaphor more as ‘literature’ than ‘alphabet’ or ‘book’. The infamous declaration at the conception of the HGP that the mapping process would allow one to download oneself onto a CD and say, ‘This is me’ is no longer plausible (Keller, 2000). Indeed, there is evidence that the metaphors scientists are working with have shifted in the last few years (Nerlich & Hellsten, 2004). On the other hand, the HGP signalled a paradigm shift in biotechnology resulting from the conceptual and organizational changes that occurred following its completion (Glasner, 2002).

Media coverage of human genetic research is not static. Indeed, the story of the HGP was not always considered to be newsworthy (Kitzinger & Reilly, 1997) and there was the sense that the HGP announcement in 2000 marked the peak of coverage. Even for specialist journalists working on quality broadsheet papers or major TV news organisations, there was the common assumption that it had become increasingly difficult to place reports on post genomic research. The largescale ‘announcement’ of the human genome ‘first draft’ was assumed, not least by editors, to mark the finality of the project and the typical response was that ‘people feel the job is done’. In some respects a staged event of this scale operates as a watershed in reporting. As one editor typically commented, ‘The post genomic work is fascinating but there's a slight problem now with the follow up because there probably won't be another moment as big as the stage managed completion’ (Science editor, broadsheet newspaper, interview (3)).

This problem was also recognised by the press team who discussed ‘genome fatigue’ and the pressure to sell science stories with specific medical benefits:

There is a certain amount of ‘genome fatigue’ in terms of the media. They want to know what the real medical benefits are. It's no good now saying we've found the gene for this, that, or the other. It's much more difficult unless it's a big one, like the melanoma one or the cleft lip and palate gene and that worked because we had a case study…. We do get some feedback from journalists saying, ‘Oh, another genome story, it's got to be a bit different’. (Senior press officer, interview (7)).

Certainly, a simple key word search of online editions of the Guardian, Daily Mirror and the Sun newspapers would seem to support this claim. Searches on the term ‘genome’ as mentioned anywhere in an article from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 (using the online archive service, LexisNexis) reveal a decline in the number of ‘hits’. Thus the Guardian mentions the term ‘genome’ in 143 articles in 2000, 63 articles in 2003, and 57 articles in 2005. A similar pattern was found in the Daily Mirror with 29 articles mentioning ‘genome’ in 2000, ten articles in 2003, and two articles in 2005. The Sun newspaper had significantly fewer references to ‘genome’, but there was also an identifiable decrease in use of the term with six articles mentioning ‘genome’ in 2000, four articles in 2003, and just one article in 2005. In comparison to the ‘biophoria’ which greeted the incomplete sequencing of 2000, the full HGP sequencing in 2003 generated far less coverage (Nerlich & Hellsten, 2004).

Concluding thoughts

The metaphors, images literary and cultural references used in the announcement of the human genome ‘completion’ in 2000 attempted to promote public euphoria, highlighting the projected benefits for healthcare and medicine, even if concern about the social context was also mentioned (Nerlich et al., 2002). The HGP continued the privileging of genetic explanations (Conrad, 1997). The media coverage reflected this positive framing and hype (Nerlich et al., 2002; Smart, 2003; Glasner, 2002). However, the coverage was not all positive or uncritical. Journalists did report some ethical legal and social risks, including the problems of an extended life span, the risks of genetic determinism and the threat of inappropriate intervention (Nerlich et al., 2002; Smart, 2003). Journalists used the project's proponents to explain and illustrate its potential for having harmful affects. On the one hand, this demonstrates the high profile given to ELSIs by those working in the field and shows that the HGP announcement was used by them as an opportunity to address some of these concerns. Indeed, the impetus behind the announcement was intricately tied in with their concerns about who should have access to such information and how. On the other hand, it raises the possibility that scientific and political sources involved in the HGP might emphasise the aspects of social concern that suit their needs at the time and that can be addressed by legal and regulatory frameworks.

The HGP news event was highly orchestrated and the interaction between the announcement, the PR process and journalistic practices and values produced a particular type of coverage much of which was orientated around the ‘race’. The story of the HGP completion emerged when it did in 2000 because there was considerable collusion behind the scenes with policy makers, key sources and journalists, particularly the elite science correspondents. The data suggests little evidence here of the ‘tugs of war’ which have been typically identified in media-source relations (see Ericson, Baranek & Chan, 1989). Certainly, for the specialist journalists, this announcement represented as one journalist described, ‘not very unspoken co operation between them and us’. Put simply, in this particular case, there was nothing to conflict about. This suggests that the HGP announcement can be seen as a valuable case study in which the worlds of science, media and policy came together in a common goal.

It was guaranteed extensive coverage because it marked a rare opportunity for a celebration of the ‘glory of science’ and drew upon long-term nurtured relationships between science organisations and media practitioners. Science correspondents have been characterised as overly dependent on their sources (LaFollette, 1982). This may explain why the specialists, at least temporarily, suspended any media-science conflicts to report the achievement of the HGP, despite being fully aware that it was certainly not complete. However, science specialists characterise themselves as journalists first and specialists second (Hansen, 1994), which may help explain why the scientific organisations were not always successful in shaping the coverage. In framing the HGP story as a ‘race’, central media values came into play and key protagonists could be juxtaposed in simplistic yet effective ways. For a British media, the oppositional value of UK versus US and the personalities of the scientists themselves provided a dramatic edge to the story. This provided impetus for the story and in fact helped to foreground some of the ethical issues. It is, however, important to note that largely this was discussed in terms of justification for ‘the race’ rather than whether the HGP endeavour was itself justified.

The role of source-media strategies in packaging science stories is important. It is possible to articulate some of the processes by which certain issues may be emphasised or neglected, to highlight media values and to explain why media coverage of science may be patterned in observable ways. Despite the numerous studies of media coverage, the impact of this reporting on different publics has still to be fully investigated. Evidence of concern about privacy, discrimination and human cloning in the wake of the announcement (see Tambor et al., 2002) suggests that lay publics do not necessarily share in uncritically celebrating scientific progress.

Notes

1. Data were collected for the project, ‘British Media Coverage of New Human Genetic Research, with Reference to Ethical, Legal and Social Implications’ (project no. 058105). This study ran for 2000–2002 and was based in the Department of Human Sciences, Brunel University. The announcement of the HGP ‘working draft’ generated peak coverage in the year 2000 and was thus selected as a case study. The television database included all main evening television news bulletins which reported human genetic research in the year 2000 (from terrestrial channels and one satellite television news, Sky Television). The newspaper database was established by scanning hard copies of all national UK newspapers. This involved skimming through a total of 3,120 daily papers and 468 Sunday editions, i.e. 3,588 editions. The sample consisted of all national UK broadsheet and tabloid press. We collected all coverage of new human genetic research (HGR) for the year 2000 from all UK national newspapers, including the Times, Guardian, Financial Times, Independent, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail;, Daily Express, Mirror, Sun and the Daily Star. The national UK Sunday papers included the Observer, Sunday Times, Independent on Sunday, Sunday Telegraph, Mail on Sunday, Sunday Express, Sunday Mirror, News of the World and Sunday People.

  A computerised database was assembled by coding every press report according to its date, headline, author, author specialism, format, page/section description, story lead, number and type of images, mention of medical benefit or risk and types of ethical, legal and social implications. These included the following issues: the ‘commercialisation’ of information, e.g. patenting; ‘information access and control’, e.g. the role of insurance companies in accessing genetic profiles or insistence on testing; and personal dilemmas, e.g. the psychosocial implications of genetic knowledge on an individual. Similar categories were used to index the TV news reporting and adapted to take format differences into account.  The coding frame was developed through intensive examination and re-examination of the datebase. The research team first drafted a coding frame for the substantive categories, such as ‘story lead’ and ‘types of ELSI’, by reviewing the year 2000 press archive to identify relevant issues and variables. Inter-rater validity was tested independently by five researchers using a sub-sample of 100 articles that were selected to represent the diversity of coverage within the archive. After further discussion, a refined coding frame was agreed and a detailed 17-page guidance manual was produced to ensure consistent practice.

2. The two other peaks relate to the release of the Donaldson report about ‘therapeutic cloning’ and using embryos in stem cell research (this occurred in week 33 (12–18 August)). The other major story in 2000 concerned the Nash family case in week 40 (30 September–6 October). This involved the announcement that pre-implantation genetic diagnoses had been used by a couple in order that they might conceive a child who could provide material for a sibling's bone marrow treatment.   The three major ‘news events’ that attracted peak coverage in the press also attracted peak coverage in TV news. The peaks of coverage are clearly visible in Fig. 2. Indeed, a total of 41% of the TV news coverage occurred in these three weeks alone. The peaks in coverage during August and then in December relate to the release of the Donaldson report making recommendations over the use of embryos for stem cell research. The report was released on 16 August 2000 and its recommendations were the subject of a parliamentary vote on 19 December 2000.

3. For example, we found that concerns about the commercialisation of genetic science appeared in 41% of all newspaper articles about the HGP compared with 15% of press coverage in the sample as a whole. Debates about access to and control over genetic information appeared in 36% of newspaper articles about the announcement compared with 15% of press coverage over the year as a whole. Finally, 25% of articles about the HGP announcement critically addressed the question of ‘geneticisation’ (compared to 10% of articles over the year as a whole. For coding and methods, see Smart, 2003).

4. Only one specialist journalist expressed the view that it was Venter rather than Sulston who had reason to complain about media coverage as he was portrayed as a ‘sort of American shark against the altruistic British’. This journalist worked for a quality broadsheet paper considered to be to the right of the political spectrum.