Reporting the dawn of the post‐genomic era: who wants to live forever?

On the 26 June 2000 the teams involved in mapping the human genome announced to the world's media that they had completed the ‘first draft’. This paper is a content analysis of UK press coverage of the announcement, particularly of the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) contained therein. Widespread and highly visible coverage of the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was characterised by press ambivalence towards, on the one hand, the optimistic future of post‐genomic medicine and, on the other hand, the pessimistic vision of post‐genomic society. Coverage of the positive medical implications characteristically echoed the exuberance felt by the champions of human genetic research, focusing on longevity and a cure for cancer. Articles on ELSIs either repeated long‐standing concerns about genetic discrimination and the redesign of human life, or introduced more novel topics such as the commercialisation of genetic science, genetic determinism and ‘living forever’. Press reports on the more novel ELSIs addressed the political and economic context of the science, its ‘social value’ and its complexity, issues that have often been lacking in media coverage of human genetics. However, as a contribution to public awareness and policy frameworks surrounding human genetic science, press coverage was deficient in important respects. The HGP's proponents were the press's key source of information about its ELSIs. Journalists addressed only a limited number of ELSIs, focusing on issues that were ‘manageable’ by regulation or legislation rather than concerns such as risk, clinical utility or opportunity costs. Furthermore, those articles that addressed the more novel concerns were often presented using sensationalist news values. As a media representation of science, coverage of the ‘first draft’ in the UK press demonstrated both ‘source dependence’ and a bias toward the legitimacy of science, although the coverage of the more novel ELSIs indicated some mistrust toward scientific governance.