Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Words & Reflectionstion. And it also reminds me what opposingarguments sound like.It was, after all, an experience ontelevision that taught me how trulyspecialized scientists are. I was on “CBSMorning News” with a scientist whospecialized in gene therapy. The hostasked him a question about how manydiseases could be screened for whilethe fetus was growing. I was aware of atleast 350 disorders that could be assessedthrough amniocentesis. However,this gene therapy researcher (whodid not do prenatal diagnosis) answered“three.” The lesson I learnedthat morning is one I hope reporterswill have learned by the time they startasking questions for coverage of thesestories.I’ve also witnessed ways in whichresearchers can misstate the facts orthe law to achieve their goals. On onenews show I was on, an in-vitro fertilizationdoctor said that she told herpatients that embryo donation is illegalin her state (which was not true) andencourags her patients to donate theirexcess embryos to her for use in herown research. On a PBS broadcast soonafter the public disclosures that theDepartment of Energy had undertakenradiation experiments on people withouttheir knowledge or consent, theMarcus Welby-looking doctor who appearedon the show with me assuredthe audience that no improper experimentationwas going on at his hospital.I knew of such research there, but hadbeen bound by confidentiality not todisclose it.In short, working with members ofthe media provides the perfect trainingground for addressing these issues inthe policy sphere. Like many in themedia, lawmakers’ attention spans areshort. They have many other matterson their plates and they might be receivingerroneous or misleading ad-vice from groups who are likely to besubject to the potential regulations.Increasingly, it seems, these twodomains—media and politics—are intersecting.Legislators are drawn to issuesthat can garner them publicity.For example, a swarm of Illinois statelawmakers introduced bills to ban humancloning immediately after RichardSeed, an independent scientist, set themedia world afire with his vow to dojust that in his state. That these lawsduplicated ones already languishingwithout action in the Illinois legislaturewas overlooked in the rush fornew publicity. Rather than vote onthose, Johnny-come-lately lawmakersintroduced their own bills in order tobe able to hold press conferences thatthe press dutifully covered. The reportersdid not do a good job of informingthe public that similar billsalready existed. And the quickest that Ihave ever been able to get a bill introducedwas when, on the Phil Donahueshow, I mentioned a problem withanonymous donor insemination. All ofa sudden, a Washington, D.C. councilmanwho had seen the show had introduceda bill to deal with my concern.(That particular bill didn’t pass.)Relying on the media is surely notthe best way to craft policy in thiscountry. Too often the ideas that takehold are ones that can be explained ina catchy phrase or pithy sound bite.These are not always the ideas or issuesthat really need to be understood ifsound policy decisions are to be made.“We don’t believe in sound bites,” onePBS producer said, trying to lure me onhis show by promising the unusualchance to discuss issues in depth. Hewent on to explain what it was hewanted: “We believe in more light, lessheat.” I thought to myself, “Now that’sthe perfect sound bite.” ■Surrogate mother Judy Stiver and her husband, Ray, left, of Lansing, Michigan, andAlexander Malahoff, who contracted with the Stivers for the birth of the infant, “BabyDoe,” appear on Phil Donahue’s show. The baby was born with microcephaly. Bloodtests show Malahoff, of Middle Village, New York, was not the father. Photo by CharlesKnoblock courtesy of AP.Lori B. Andrews is a professor atChicago-Kent College of Law andauthor of “The Clone Age: Adventuresin the New World of ReproductiveTechnology,” published by HenryHolt and Company in the spring of1999.78 Nieman Reports / Fall 1999