Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

It’s not often that science makes the lead story in a national newspaper.
And normally we would applaud enthusiastically. But last Thursday’s decision
by The Independent to ‘splash’ the discovery of a gene, whose presence is
apparently essential for the development of a male mouse, still left an
uncomfortable taste.

Were we witnessing a scientific triumph, comparable-as the newspaper
itself suggested-to the moment when the helical structure of the DNA molecule
was unravelled in a Cambridge laboratory? Or the hyping up of a scientific
breakthrough, important enough in its own right, but perhaps not of quite
the earth-staggering proportions that the newspaper’s night editor might
have been fantasising about?

The truth, of course, is somewhere between the two. The discovery of
a gene which, when injected into a female mice embryo, can trigger a process
that allows the embryo to turn into a ‘male’, albeit sterile with abnormally
small testes, is undoubtedly a major scientific feat (see This Week, 11
May). The fact that it was made by British scientists is a reassuring sign
that parts of Britain’s research base are still thriving. And drama was
added by the fact that the discovery represented victory in a race with
American researchers, who were also on the track of the gene and closing
in fast.

The gene’s identity may one day have major benefits for medical researchers.
But, unless we are careful in the way such discoveries are presented, it
could also have the less desirable effect of encouraging even greater belief
in the genetic basis of personal characteristics than is currently the case.

This is the danger we slip into when the somewhat abstract idea of ‘genetic
predisposition’ gets transformed into the more concrete (but less scientifically
accurate) notion of ‘genetic determination’. There is a rapidly growing
list of diseases whose occurrence in an individual appears to be related
to the presence of a particular defective gene. But we need to remember-and
keep reminding employers, insurance companies and so on-that in most
cases the presence of such a gene does not mean that the individual concerned
will inevitably develop the disease in question.

For the headline writer in The Independent to describe last week’s discovery
as the ‘gene that determines gender’ is therefore overstating the case,
albeit subtly, in a potentially dangerous way. Indeed, it is almost more
dangerous for the media, with their direct impact on public consciousness,
to commit such mistakes than for the scientists themselves to slip into
such language. Yes, the presence of the gene in question has now been shown
(in an admittedly small sample of mice) to be a necessary condition for
the development of a male mice. But it is not sufficient, and other genes
are likely to be involved.

Unfortunately, it is the apparent simplicity of the ‘scientists discover
the gene for X’ type of story that lends itself to overblown treatment by
the media. But even the concept of a gene is complex (can you draw one?).
Perhaps more subeditors should be reminded that scientific truth is ‘never
pure, and seldom simple’.