summer-2003-Part 2-live - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Medical Reportingonline retail make it a better investmentthan retail chains with expertise,warehouses, customers and revenue.Have journalists not learned fromthe dot-com bubble? Can we, as reporters,not restrain our wildest dreams infavor of accurately describing the limited,but still wonderful, progress thatwe observe?Our key error seems to be unwarranteddeference to professionals inthe universities and sciences. This fostersa widespread reluctance to treatscientists (whether they’re sources,subscribers or friends) as who theyreally are—university-based entrepreneursworking in a complex of professionaland commercial interests. Mostscientists, along with many other professionals,prefer to downplay wealthwhile they compete for and then advertisethe professional status that is oftenthe key to wealth and further professionalstatus.The media’s deference to the scientists’self-image is not universal, but itis routine. For example, both Rick Weissat The Washington Post and NicholasWade at The New York Times—whoreport many of these stories—explainedthat they usually did not includein their articles mention of thefinancial interests of the scientists becausethese interests are so commonplace.In my interview with Wade, whichI conducted while writing a freelancepiece for The Washington Monthly, healso told me that readers are not interestedin financial matters. And the approachthese influential reporters takeis similar to that taken by the vastmajority of journalists who write andedit these stories.But financial matters and professionalrivalries are not merely “fit toprint.” They’re central to the story ofbiotech, science and cloning. ■Neil Munro covers the politics ofscience and technology for the NationalJournal in Washington, D.C.Previously, he covered the dot-combubble for Washington Technologyand the U.S. Department of Defensefor Defense News.nmunro@njdc.comReporting the Cloning Story: From Hype toHealthy SkepticismJournalists can produce stronger stories by scrutinizing the motives,finances and personalities of researchers.By Aaron ZitnerThe scene was the National Academyof Sciences, the palace ofthe American scientific establishment.Marble columns. Walnut paneling.One of the neoclassical buildingsthat give Washington, D.C. its imperialfeel. Only on this day, the building washome more to circus than science.That’s how it felt to be in the throng ofreporters chasing three self-describedcloning researchers around the foyersand Great Hall, trying to press them ontheir alleged plans to clone humanbeings.It was August 2001, and the presswas beginning to grapple with the prospectof human cloning. The three“cloners” had been invited to speak ata conference on the subject, and ateach break we would pounce. Wechased Brigitte Boisselier into a dimlylit stairway, where she’d hoped to con-fer with her lawyer. We chased Italianfertility doctor, Severino Antinori, tothe men’s bathroom and then—in oneof the day’s few gestures of restraint—waited outside as he conducted hisbusiness. When he emerged, Antinoriwas greeted by a crowd of reportersand a half-dozen camera lights.Of course, this is just what Boisselierand the other cloning advocateswanted. They were there to gain attentionand ultimately, I believe, to makemoney on their cloning claims by attractinginvestors or clients. And weobliged them with stories that introducedtheir names to people aroundthe world—Antinori, his then-colleaguePanos Zavos, and Boisselier, an officialwith the once-obscure Raelian Movement,a religious group fixated on sexand UFO’s. We, in the media, madethem famous.Hyping the Cloning StoryIn itself, I saw nothing wrong with this.Personality is a key ingredient in thecloning story, which is also a rich combinationof science, sex, business, ethicsand very serious questions aboutlegal constraints on disease research—spiced with a generous dollop of creepiness.It’s an irresistible mix for anyreporter. Besides, it was the nationalacademy that gave the cloning advocatesthe podium that day; the mediafollowed the academy’s lead. (And,before that, Zavos, Boisselier and herreligious mentor, who goes by the nameRael, had been called to testify by noneother than the House of Representatives.)But as we chased this rich story, asjournalists we could—and should—have done much better for news con-Nieman Reports / Summer 2003 25