Carterwrites

Scientists have decoded a full set of cancer genes, a breakthrough which could very possibly lead to the isolation of key genetic markers and lend insight into the mysterious phenomenon of cellular mutation. This could be an incredible step for the medical community. It has the potential to open new doors in international research and translate into effective personalized cancer treatments for families ravaged by the disease.

I am writing in a spirit of critical exploration of mainstream media’s science coverage. Do they sensationalize stories to achieve top circulation and profit, or cautiously evaluate the validity and source of released information? As prompted by my assignment this week, I will attempt to answer the above question within the frame of Denise Grady’s article “Scientists Decode Set of Cancer Genes” on The New York Times online edition.

After thoroughly reading Grady’s story, I have come away impressed by her ability to present complex material in an accessible yet accurate form, while maintaining academic distance and objectivity. From her opening statement, Grady was careful to qualify her assertions and avoid false promises by reporting only “on a set of mutations that may have caused the disease or aided its progression.”

I appreciated rather than filtering the facts entirely through a personal lens, Grady relied heavily upon direct quotes from experts and researchers alike. Additionally, the article was free from broad, sweeping predictions as she relayed the facts and provided the reader with a foundation from which to interpret the findings.

If the article had been a construct for storytelling and written with the sole aim of profit, then I would have lacked the knowledge to comprehend, or even contextualize its significance. I am extremely pleased that Grady provided a scientific refresher for those of us who have long departed from our high school biology days. She plainly but intelligently explained possible ramifications of the study, explored the history of cancer treatment, and gave the reader tools to independently analyze the findings. All of this Grady accomplished without a trace of condescension. Impressive.

Grady’s writing was not free of enthusiasm, a characteristic that could be interpreted as unwarranted for research that is only one step alongside thousands in the journey toward a cure. There is some evidence of cherry picking, with nearly every quote affirming the great potential of, as Doctor Richard K. Wilson, senior author of the study called it, “holy grail sort of stuff.” Despite such arguments, I am pleased by the modesty with which Grady presented the story—a story that could easily have been sensationalized beyond recognition.

Several years ago, my mom had a breast cancer scare that, after weeks of testing, was proven to be a false alarm. At that time, my family underwent a tremendous amount of stress, and we joined in empathy with the millions across the globe affected by the disease. I can personally attest to the desperation with which you pray for a breakthrough and call for healing in the name of God, in the name of science. During those terrifying two weeks, I would have been extremely malleable to the manipulations of the press. The release of an unprecedented study such as this could easily be misrepresented, capitalizing upon the deep emotional power cancer holds over individuals, families, and the public at large. My respect for the New York Times, and especially for Denise Grady, is greatly increased by this excellent example of professional and restrained reporting.