Craig Klugman, Ph.D.
The way that the media reports on bioethics issues can have a strong influence on how information is presented and what conclusions the reporters offer to their readers and viewers. For example, this week, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released a report that examined whether trials on an anthrax vaccine in children should be undertaken. The idea for the trial came about from a 2011 bioterrorism exercise in San Francisco based on the scenario of an anthrax attack. The exercise suggested that 8 million people would die, including 2 million children. Federal plans in the event of such an attack call for the immediate distribution of anthrax vaccine. However, the vaccine has never been tested in children so understanding its effects in them is unknown. Thus, the National Biodefense Science Board recommended a clinical trial in children. Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius requested an ethics review of the plan.
The news release put forth by the Commission says “President’s Bioethics Commission Releases Report on Pediatric Medical Countermeasure.” The synopsis states “Recommends that multiple steps must be taken before ethical pediatric anthrax vaccine trials can be considered by the U.S. government.” The language is neutral and tries to emphasize the facts of the report and the case.
The media offers various headlines to this news, each of which lend an interpretation above the statement of facts. Some headlines suggest that the Commission blessed the trials. For example, ScienceInsider used the headline “Bioethics Panel Gives Yellow Light to Anthrax Vaccine Trial in Children.” The reference to “Yellow Light” is an obvious allusion to a stop light with it’s red, yellow and green lights. Yellow in traffic parlance means, proceed with caution. Thus this headline suggests that with some thought, the Commission says that the trials are acceptable. This interpretation emphasizes the “proceed” over the “caution” that is prominent in the report. Similarly, USA Today offered the following headline: “Panel urges limited tests of anthrax vaccine in kids.” In this interpretation, the caution is thrown away and the report is viewed as strongly recommending (“urging”) that a limited trial proceed.
Other news outlets offered a more conservative stance, suggesting that the Report finds the trials acceptable with caveats. The Washington Post article announces, “Ethics panel sets high bar for anthrax vaccine research in children.” This newspaper’s interpretation implies that studies may proceed, but there are a number of hurdles to overcome first. As compared to ScienceInsider and USA Today, the Post emphasizes the caution over proceed.
On the other side are headlines that suggest the Commission was against the clinical trials. National Public Radio (NPR) reports “Bioethics Panel Warns Against Anthrax Vaccine Testing On Kids.” FoxNews offers a similar interpretation, “Panel: Thumbs down on anthrax vaccine in kids.” These news outlets, representing different ends of the political spectrum, offer a similar perspective that contrasts with that of other sources.
One may presume that such slants in headlines are unimportant because anyone who reads the article will get the fuller story. However, some reports suggest that 44% of people only read the headlines. Thus, the power of a headline cannot be underestimated.
The Report actually states that such trials must be designed to pose a minimal risk to potential subject and offer protection to children. In addition, the studies should only be undertaken after a “national-level ethical review.” The Report says that it is important to “…ensure the highest standards of protection for children that reflect an unwavering commitment to safeguard all children from unacceptable risks in research and through research promotes their health and well-being.”
These headline examples show that even in the most respected news outlets, a nuanced message can be lost. Part of the fault may lay with the media that sensationalizes the news in order to gain readers or viewers. They are supposed to serve the public interest as the Fourth Estate but also increasingly serve a corporate interest of making profits for their owners. Bioethics too has had a part to play. As a field, bioethics has not done its job in educating reporters and editors and in developing a public presence that can communicate clearly with a generalist audience. Much has been written on this topic, and bioethics must take on the responsibility of translating these complex issues into public language that is clear and whose meaning cannot be so easily reinterpreted.
And even when such communication is done well, as it was in the release of this report, once the message is in the hands of others, the nuanced philosophy that underlays much bioethics debates can be, and possibly will be, lost.