Message from the Director
The Genome & the Media
Huntington F. Willard, PhD
We've come a long way since Quincy.
Remember that show? From 1976 to 1983, Jack Klugman yelled and screamed his way into our living rooms as medical examiner Dr. R. Quincy. As I recall, he even had what he called, futuristically and almost reverently, a "DNA Sequencer." In its time, Quincy's willingness to venture into a DNA-laden storyline was an anomaly. But turn on your TV today and you'll find it's now a given. Increasingly, the public is exposed to regular doses of genomics and related biotechnology. It's even become a respectable profession: this season, CSI: Miami pushes the entertainment envelope by expanding the role of Ryan Wolfe, a cop who is pursuing a Master's degree in genetics, something that never would have occurred to anyone toiling in Quincy's lab in 1977.
"But I would argue that, well beyond science, pop culture will always be more potent and reach a broader audience than classroom pedagogy, whatever forms the latter may take."Perhaps it's not surprising that ten years after the OJ Simpson case invaded our collective consciousness, forensic DNA's dramatic potential is being explored so relentlessly by purveyors of pop culture. And it’s not just forensics: DNA figures heavily in Alias, much as it did in The X-Files. An animated version of the late evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould performed DNA tests on The Simpsons in 1997. Richard Preston, best-selling author of The Cobra Event, described the use of genome sequencing and database searching to identify an unknown virus so vividly that it was sure to inspire future genome scientists (hopefully even more than future terrorists). And NBC's Brian Williams, reporting on the Bush-Kerry election, spoke breathlessly of candidates who have "politics etched in their DNA." That's the genome, folks, right on primetime TV.
I'm not complaining; primetime works, and, if anything, I'd like to see even more "Genome TV." Same goes for "Genome Art" and "Genome Music." Far from putting the scientific enterprise at risk, such exposure can only help us engage and attract those capable of advancing genome sciences and policy. While a growing number of students continue to pursue graduate and professional work in genome-related fields, I have a sense that–at least at most institutions–they often do so despite their college coursework. Pre-med and pre-grad studies are still used to weed out prospective scientists–to discourage them rather than encourage them. One colleague has lamented that the whole process has become like a fraternity hazing ritual.
Changing the way science is taught is an obvious and necessary approach to this problem, and many prominent scientists have taken up this challenge. But I would argue that, well beyond science, pop culture will always be more potent and reach a broader audience than classroom pedagogy, whatever forms the latter may take. How many kids applied to law school after seeing The Paper Chase? How many would-be reporters were inspired to pursue journalism by All the President's Men? If science were portrayed as something more directly relevant to real life, might we not engage a broader cross-section of the next generation? Somewhere out there is a budding writer aspiring to write the first great "Genome Novel." Might we see normal people on stage or on screen occasionally be portrayed as genome scientists? Or the reverse: genome scientists occasionally portrayed as normal people?
As we've discussed before in GenomeLIFE, the impact of the Human Genome Project on health is just beginning to take form, and it will no doubt take time before it's felt on a broad scale. Meanwhile, for evidence of just how pervasive the Genome Revolution is, take a look at the marketplace. Entrepreneurs of various stripes are now selling genetically engineered fish as pets, DNA chips to test food products, skin creams designed according to customers' DNA profiles, and bobblehead dolls modeled on Nobel Prize-winner James Watson.
Of course, by itself, this sort of commerce is unlikely to inspire a wave of new biology or public policy majors. All the more reason, then, to put plausible dramatizations of genome science on television or on the big screen. PBS is fine, but its talking-head science shows and aura of "This is supposed to be good for you" are things kids can sniff out a mile away. In all likelihood they are more impressed by David Caruso comparing suspects' DNA sequences on CSI or by Jennifer Garner doing, well, almost anything, but certainly talking about genome databases.
Those of us trying to offer the future of genome science to students should keep that in mind. Because how the Genome Revolution is portrayed on the tube or in the theatre or in a studio isn't just academic. It's life.
Huntington F. Willard
Director