BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing Our World

  • Michael Fumento
Encounter Books, 2003 532 pp. hardcover, $28.95 ISBN 1-893554-75-9 | ISBN: 1-893554-75-9

Journalists have long served as invaluable middlemen in the popularization of science, viewing themselves as conduits between scientists and the public, with the goal of effectively communicating scientists' results so that the public can have a better appreciation and understanding of the topic or subject. The communication of complex science-related events and trends, however, is inevitably shaped by social and political influences. For example, many scientists view the controversy over embryonic stem cell research primarily as a technical matter, emphasizing the scientific potential of the research and the details of funding. Most interest groups, however, define the issue as a matter principally about morality and ethics. Opponents counsel holding back on embryonic research that tempts 'playing God,' and research advocates urge that it would be morally wrong to hinder work that offers the promise of 'miracle cures.' A handful of observers emphasize the important patent and property rights issues involved, and even fewer commentators emphasize a role for the general public in resolving the controversy.

Journalists are therefore faced with many competing themes when deciding how to define trends in science. Sometimes their decisions are determined by the media-lobbying activities of various interest groups; other times they are based on the preferred story line of the journalist. The stakes are high in the competition to frame what a science-related development is about, since media interpretations help drive policy debate and market investment, shaping the criteria by which the public, investors, policymakers and even scientists evaluate the issue.

Understanding the influence of their coverage, most journalists prefer to hold to the objectivity norm, balancing sources against each other, and featuring differing perspectives on any given topic. The objectivity norm sometimes distresses scientists, who feel uncomfortable when their credentialed views are pitted against those of a nonscientist, but it serves many valuable functions for the journalist, including projecting the appearance of neutrality in any debate, and ensuring to a degree that any one definition of an issue does not come to dominate coverage. A few journalists, however, view their professional role not as impartial reporters, but as advocates, defining science-related controversies in ways that agree with their worldview, and producing science coverage with the goal of having an impact on the political debate.

Michael Fumento, a columnist for Scripps Howard News Service, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and a frequent contributor to National Review Online, is a journalist with a strong worldview who prefers the role of advocate, and in BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing Our World, he offers a worthy example of how complex trends in science can be defined in politically advantageous terms. Fumento's work is a selective translation for the lay reader of the many strands of biotechnology-related research, with a boosterish emphasis on the market potential for biotech. He crafts his story about biotech to fit conveniently with his conservative ideology, dismissing social and political dimensions that shape biotech's research and market trajectory.

Fumento's chief aim appears to be to promote biotechnology to investors and the interested public, and he is to be commended for his ability to cover in technical detail the vast ground of scientific research related to biotechnology. He divides his narrative into four main areas: advances in medicine, research related to aging and tissue regeneration, developments in agriculture and food, and applications directed at phytoremediation and toxic cleanup. Readers can thumb through the chapters as if the book were an encyclopedia, beginning at a chapter of interest, and then skipping ahead to another area of concern. In an appendix, Fumento provides for investors a list of the biotech companies mentioned, along with the Web address for each firm.

The descriptions of the latest science are documented with 150 pages of notes, and the ground Fumento covers is so diverse that it would require an independent panel of specialists to double check the technical accuracy of his science reporting. Still, Fumento's comprehensiveness shouldn't be mistaken for objectivity. His citations to the scientific literature and to news articles are amassed with the main goal of authoring a carefully articulated political argument in defense of biotechnology.

His framing of the politics surrounding agricultural biotechnology is especially troubling. Fumento relies heavily on the moral argument and extraordinary claim that research related to agbiotech will someday defeat world hunger, yet he never covers important issues related to food distribution and access. He characterizes responsible environmental groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, who have poked holes in the feed-the-world claims and who have urged caution in the face of unknown risks, as “Luddites,” accusing them of being “utterly insensitive to the developing world.” On the European front, though Fumento accurately emphasizes that some of the European resistance to agbiotech is driven by protectionism, anti-Americanism, cultural traditions surrounding food and diminished trust in regulators and industry, Fumento ignores the reality that European concerns also turn on deeper social and political values. Recent surveys indicate that, although they are by no means technophobes, many Europeans no longer view technological development and economic growth as social priorities; they have reservations about private enterprise and the influence of multinationals, and have come to value nature intrinsically rather than instrumentally. In overlooking these more sophisticated interpretations of public opinion, Fumento naively asserts that over time, “the science will eventually sell itself.” Ignorance, according to Fumento, is the ultimate source of negativism, and only by educating the public about the facts of the science and the benefits of the technology will opposition be overcome.

The imprint of Fumento's worldview is also evident in his chapter on stem cell research. It is clear that he finds embryonic stem cell research morally problematic. Yet, according to Fumento, the ethical dilemma over funding for embryo research could be rendered obsolete if focus were placed instead on adult stem cell research. Starting with the answer that adult stem cell research is good and embryonic stem cell research is bad, Fumento devotes his chapter on the topic to arguing that only adult stem cell research offers the potential for treatments and cures within the next few years, whereas much doubt clouds the possibility for success with embryonic research. He also attempts to debunk the claim that adult stem cells are more limited in their plasticity than their embryonic counterparts, and argues that adult stem cells “may be superior in all ways.” Fumento insists that the embryonic stem cell research movement has been spearheaded by scientists with strong economic ties to the research, and that both journalists and politicians have been hoodwinked by the appeals of these scientists and their “disinformation” campaign.

Though Fumento appears to be at odds with scientific consensus regarding the comparative plasticity of adult stem cells, it is nice to see Fumento the journalist casting a skeptical eye on a tiny portion of the vast amount of politically driven claims aimed at promoting biotechnology. It is too bad he does so only when it appeals to his own ideology.