Stem cell scientists seize the media agenda on human-animal embryos
Setting up a press briefing a few days before Christmas for a few days
after Christmas on an incredibly controversial subject with some of
the UK's most important scientists should have been a nightmare. In
fact the opposite was the case for the Science Media Centre after
eagled eyed Evan Harris MP and leading stem cell expert Stephen Minger
spotted a sentence in the Government's White Paper on fertility laws
published in late December which proposed a ban on the use of
human-animal hybrid embryos for research.
As emails started circulating with the text of the White Paper more
and more researchers expressed deep dismay that this important area of
stem cell research might be banned. I won't go into too much detail
about the science here - not least because unless you have been on
holiday in Antarctica - you are likely to have seen the specific
process described in great (and accurate) detail in everything from
The Sun to the BBC News at Ten. Put basically, what scientists want to
do is to further their understanding of certain diseases by studying
stem cells from cloned embryos, a process known as therapeutic
cloning. However because of the severe shortage of human eggs for this
kind of research some have applied to the HFEA for a license to use
animal eggs. What they would do is empty out the rabbit or cow egg and
put in the nucleus of a human cell - taken from an adult with the
disease they want to study - and induce it to become an early stage
embryo which would be destroyed at 14 days after they had derived the
disease specific stem cells.
What has worried stem cell researchers so much about this surprise
proposal is that no reason has been given for recommending a ban apart
from the strength of opposition to this research voiced by those who
responded to the Government's consultation on fertility laws. In other
words it looks like a government that has gone out of its way to
promote the importance of stem cell research may be about to ban one
aspect of it for no other reason than a perception that the public
don't like it - and the prospect of `frankenbunny' headlines.
The SMC has history on this issue - it was at our Fertility Rumble
press briefing this time last year that Chris Shaw, from Kings College
London, first told journalists that he and Ian Wilmut were amongst
others considering applying to use rabbit eggs to allow them to pursue
their therapeutic cloning research into motor neurone disease. Having
seen the media reaction and some of the `frankenbunny' headlines, we
immediately spoke to a group of stem cell experts and invited them
into the Centre to run a background briefing on these human-animal
hybrid embryos. We also continued to organise briefings and interviews
as the scientists submitted their applications to the HFEA later in
the year.
The SMC reacted to the news about a proposed ban by arguing that this
development should be seized as an opportunity to remind public and
policy makers this research is needed. We suggested an emergency media
briefing to take place in advance of a HFEA meeting scheduled for
early January where two applications to use animal eggs were due to be
discussed.
With the enthusiastic backing of their respective press officers, Ian
Wilmut from Edinburgh, Lyle Armstrong from Newcastle, Anne McLaren
from Cambridge and Chris Shaw and Stephen Minger from Kings College
arrived in the Centre on 4th January to face a room packed full with
science and health reporters from almost every conceivable national
newspaper and TV and radio station.
There's something special about a briefing like this where something
big is at stake and that's how it felt on the day. In what one
journalists described as a `feisty' briefing, these scientists made a
case for the use of rabbit or cow eggs that was compelling, humane,
reasoned, passionate and just plain convincing. The arguments just
kept coming: the cloned embryo is almost 100% human and the HFEA has
already licensed therapeutic cloning of human embryos; it will be
destroyed after 14 days; the stem cells are for research only and not
to be used as therapies in patients; there will be no living thing
produced; no-one is harmed by the research and so on and so on.
For me however the highlight of the briefings was when Chris Shaw, a
clinician who sees patients with motor neurone disease every day of
his life, told us that despite years and years of research the
scientific community has been unable to find a cure or even effective
treatments for this most terrible of terrible diseases. Suddenly the
moral equation seemed to have changed and it felt to me like it was
the Government and those seeking to ban this research who have a case
to answer - when tens of thousands of people are suffering and dying -
how can they morally justify closing the door on an avenue of research
that many experts agree offers real promise? Rather than scientists
playing with nature - these scientists came over as people dedicated
to improving the quality of life while their opponents are playing
politics and running scared of lurid headlines and the pro-life lobby.
Waiting for the media coverage from SMC briefings is always an anxious
affair - after all we specialise in presenting the most controversial
science subjects to the national news media - it's a risky business.
Though after 4 years at this job I have turned into something of a
cheerleader for the national media's specialist science and health
reporters and was less worried about their coverage than about their
headlines writers and picture editors. But despite a few images of
cute bunny rabbits and the more annoying pictures of 6 month old
foetuses in the womb, the coverage was overwhelmingly positive,
balanced and accurate. It was also everywhere! Many papers, including
The Times and the FT ran leaders supporting the researchers case and
many others ran supplementary `fact boxes' explaining the science in
great detail. The midnight embargo allowed the Today programme to run
not one, not two but three packages on the story as well as making it
their lead story on the news bulletins. And thanks to the wonderful
science reporters on the Daily Mail, that most important of newspapers
ran a beautiful piece pointing put the threat to patients if the HFEA
turned down applications for this groundbreaking research!
Such was the intensity of the coverage that health ministers who had
refused to put anyone up for interview on the Today programme had to
change their mind and agree to an interview on The World at One. And
after a week of answering stupid questions about his Christmas holiday
in the Bee Gees' mansion, Tony Blair returned to face very serious
questions about his Government's intention to ban important stem cell
research. His response - that he felt sure this research would be
allowed to go forward if it could be shown to improve the quality of
life for ill people - has given the researchers hope that this
wrong-headed proposal won't make it through to the final legislation.
In the days that followed more of the same kind of media coverage
appeared with the scientific community keeping the pressure up with a
joint letter to The Times organised by Evan Harris MP and signed by 50
leading experts including three Nobel prize winners and the head of
the Royal Society. By this stage other prominent scientists were
entering the debate with statements of support from people like Mark
Walport from the Wellcome Trust, Colin Blakemore and Chris Higgins
form the MRC and many medical ethicists. Within the space of a week
there had been so much media coverage of this issue across the whole
spectrum of tabloids, broadsheets, radio, TV, on-line etc that few
people in the UK could claim to not have heard about human animal
embryos. And because the coverage was generated by the scientists, it
was their message on this research that came over loud and clear.
Interestingly the on-line opinion polls carried out after people had
heard the issues explained by the researchers came out very
differently to the government's consultation with nearly 60% of those
polled by BBC on-line voting in favour of licensing this research.
So even by the SMC's standards the first week of 2007 has been both
exciting and satisfying. But I hope it will be more than that - I hope
that the way these scientists reacted to the threat to their research
can act as a model of how scientists should react when other crucial
science is under threat. These scientists have done everything right.
They have been briefing science and health journalists at every stage
of their application to do this research so that by the time the
government signalled a plan to ban the research all the key
journalists in the national news media already understood the complex
science and the compelling case for the research. I have no doubt
whatsoever that the media coverage was so good because of the
established relationship between these two groups.
Secondly these scientists seized the media agenda in an exemplary way.
Despite voices suggesting that lobbying MPs should be done in private
and that we should wait to see what the HFEA decided before going to
the press, the scientists agreed with the press officers involved that
by proactively briefing the media in advance of the HFEA discussion
they would have more chance of getting the science across in an
accurate and balanced way. This kind of boldness and pro-active
approach to influencing public and political discussion is rare in
science and obviously scientists rightly don't want to turn into
campaigners - but occasionally there will be policy decisions that are
bad for science and bad for society and the scientists doing this
research deserve to have their voices heard in the national debate.
A week after our briefing the HFEA announced it would not follow the
Government in seeking a ban on research on human animal embryos but
will launch a public consultation in which the scientists will be
invited to play a significant role. A victory for a brave pioneering
group of scientists whose voice was made loud and strong and
influential because they were prepared to engage with the media on
this most controversial of subjects - the Science Media Centre was
proud to be associated with it.
Posted by Fiona Fox at 13:36
No comments:
Post a Comment