Inflation of Scientific News

“Quark,” an excellent magazine specializing in science communication published in Barcelona, reviews details of the story of “the news of the century” and proposes, as its moral, a reflection on how popular sources of information about scientific matters operate and what interests are involved. On August 7, 1996, NASA officials, a team from the Johnson Space Center in Houston and another from Stanford University announced that evidence had been found suggesting that primitive life existed on Mars 3.6 billion years ago. A meteorite that had fallen 13,000 years earlier and was recovered in Antarctica in 1984 had revealed possible microscopic fossils resembling bacteria. The journal “Science” immediately published a scientific dossier on the discovery. From the White House, President Clinton hailed “the discovery of life on Mars.” London’s “Times” ran a futuristic headline: “Three missions already have dates to go to the red planet.” And in an editorial: “Humankind may no longer be as alone as previously thought.” Carl Sagan, the Cornell astronomer known to our wider public through the television series “Cosmos” some years earlier, reflected: “It is news that may represent a crucial change… it raises a new perspective on our place in the Universe. But the only way to confirm the discovery is to go to Mars.” (Sagan, who had died not long before, had devoted forty years of his life to the dream of space exploration.)

The “Financial Times” chronicled the excitement experienced by NASA scientists over the discovery and the obvious consequence that it might enable a favorable review of the institution’s budget then before Congress; it had not yet been considered, and there was still time to amend it. But as the days passed, reservations began to grow. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard zoologist, said that it was very difficult to verify the truth of the news. The prestigious journal “Nature” expressed measured skepticism and printed, by way of summary, a significant paragraph: “Modern science is nothing more and nothing less than the operational arm of society’s curiosity. This may seem obvious, but the way in which science has for some time decided to sell itself exceeds anything imaginable.”

By mid-August, the irony began. “Have the Martians landed in Antarctica?” asked a British newspaper.

The subject, as we all know, gradually faded away. The world returned to its earthly affairs without further concern. It had already received its dose of universal history and adrenaline. Remarkably, as early as August 9, when “the news of the century” was being spread around the world, two geologists from Aberdeen had published a skeptical “letter to the editor” in “The Guardian”: “We would not wish to appear cynical, but it is curiously amusing to see how the oversized news of evidence of fossilized life on Mars reaches us three days before the film ‘Independence Day’ is released.” (Let us remember that the film concerns an invasion of Earth from outer space.) These writers were suspicious above all of Hollywood; the others, above all of NASA. Both sides distrusted the scientific “establishment.”

The question of life on Mars was a one-off announcement. There is another type of scientific news that has acquired continuity and seems likely to endure: news coming from the field of molecular biology and, more precisely, human genetic technology. Richard Lewontin, a molecular geneticist and professor of Biology at Harvard, while commenting specifically on Carl Sagan’s latest book, joins the criticism of NASA (and Clinton) for the uproar they created over “a Martian rock probably contaminated on Earth.” But his article deals mainly with a field that has occupied him for some time: the myth of the gene and “genomania” (“The Dream of the Human Genome,” 1992). He criticizes scientists and institutions that, partly intoxicated by previous successes and partly seeking to secure public financial support for their projects, make grand promises that they cannot fulfill. In the same way, he says, that in earlier times we were bombarded with extravagant claims about UFOs (“Unidentified Flying Objects”), we are now bombarded with weekly announcements that yet another gene has been located for yet another disease. He argues that determining the role played by DNA has, in practical terms, produced consequences neither for therapy nor for prevention. In the case of cancer, for example, treatments remain what they were before molecular biology became involved: cutting it out, burning it and poisoning it (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy). Yet for years we have repeatedly been given press conferences and optimistic announcements from the National Cancer Institute. And reports constantly appear announcing the location of a new gene responsible for some disease. The typical message is: “It was announced today by scientists at the Medical School (of Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford) that the DNA sequence of a gene responsible for (some, many, a common form of) (schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease, arteriosclerosis, prostate cancer) has been located and determined. This fascinating research, the scientists say, is the first step toward what may eventually become a possible cure for this disease.” I believe, however, that even a superficial analysis of developments in biological science over the last twenty years shows that we are in a better position because of the massive government funding of molecular biology.” There are opinions that coincide with parts of both positions. The director of Oxford’s Institute of Molecular Medicine published a realistic and measured article in the specialized section of London’s “Times” on January 30, 1998.

He warns that when scientists announce that they have discovered a gene for heart disease or asthma, what they really mean is that they have identified one of the many genes that can, under certain circumstances, make an individual more or less susceptible to the action of a variety of environmental agents, some of which are known to be associated with common, difficult-to-treat diseases. So far, this approach has not produced the expected successes, although it is still too early to say anything with certainty. He adds that the other branch of human genetics that has, to some extent, been disappointing is what was called, somewhat optimistically, gene therapy. If we can identify genes that cause disease, why not replace them with good ones? The concept was so simple that about ten years ago success seemed likely to be imminent; however, so far we have witnessed none. Transferring genes into a new environment and inducing them to do their work, with all the sophisticated regulatory mechanisms involved, has so far proved too difficult a task for molecular geneticists.

Twenty-five years ago, Dr. D. J. Weatherall comments, recombinant human DNA technology became known. It has been a period of remarkable scientific progress; nevertheless, the benefits for medical practice have been small. But this should not be surprising. After all, a long time passed before advances in infectious diseases and immunology made during the latter part of the previous century fully translated into benefits for patients; Robert Koch announced the discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus in 1882, but it was not until 1944 that Selman Waksman developed the first anti-tuberculosis drug. And infectious diseases, since each responds to a single cause, were easier nuts to crack. The overselling of the enormous activity taking place in these fields reflects the superficiality of some of the scientists involved, many of whom appear to have lost touch with the real world of chronic disease and, to some extent, of a pharmaceutical industry eager to believe that these developments will produce rapid dividends.