Home Overview Press Room Blog Publications For Students about us

Breaking the Richard Seed Story: Must It Now Be Fixed?

by Jim KlingBioMedNet
April 17th, 1998

In March 1997, the world learned that it may be possible to produce a cloned individual from an adult mammal. The universal question was, How long before someone will try it with humans? On January 6, 1998, National Public Radio reporter Joe Palca broadcast the answer: in the coming months, if Chicago-area physicist and sometime fertility researcher Richard Seed has his way.

The 10-minute dialogue touched off a media storm, with newspapers and television jumping on it all across the country. But science writers everywhere are questioning the story's validity. Is Richard Seed credible? Is there a realistic chance that he'll get the backing he needs?

Right now he doesn't have the money, he doesn't have a firm commitment from the physician who will perform the procedure, and he doesn't have an infertile couple willing to undergo the procedure, Palca admitted during the segment. Many science journalists were left wondering where the news value was.

Several prominent ones refused to cover it. Among those was Robert Lee Hotz, a science writer at the Los Angeles Times. He wanted confirmation that a fertility clinic was on board with the plan. In his report, Palca indicated that he had met with members of one such clinic that would consider doing the procedure, but Palca didn't identify those sources. Having written a book about the fertility research in the 1980s, Hotz had a pretty good idea who the people at the clinic were . . . some are more adventuresome than others. I made some guesses and called, but I couldn't get anyone to 'fess up' [in time for my] deadline, Hotz recalls. So he dropped the story.

Joel Shurkin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning freelance science writer formerly at the Philadelphia Inquirer, says he wouldn't have covered the story at all, citing the improbability of Seed ever succeeding at cloning a human being. When somebody just mouths off pie in the sky, it isn't a news story. . . . I was much less upset at Joe than all the others who followed it as if it were a news story. What ever happened to news judgement? What irked both Shurkin and Hotz is that many reporters picked up the story from Palca's report, without confirming his sources. The news media has become less a gatherer of news and more a disperser of news. Joe did original research and the others didn't. . . . [Dispersing news] is a whole new role for the media, and it's one I don't like, says Shurkin.

Palca saw one particularly troubling article the next day; it quoted Seed as saying that he already had people lined up to be cloned. He never said that to me, Palca recalls. My next question would've been: What are their names? I think there was a lot of unrigorous coverage. Still, John Gever, who writes drug industry trade newsletters, saw the story as an opportunity to educate. Look, here's how I see the Seed story. We have Dolly, right? So we know it's possible to make a genetic copy of an adult higher mammal. Now here's a guy with a modicum of credentials going around saying he's going to start a human cloning clinic. He's asking people for money to get it underway. He is apparently the first person to do so. This is news! . . . The welter of reasons why Seed is unlikely to make it actually happen don't detract from the newsworthiness, they are part of the story.

Palca clearly had a similar attitude. Seed probably will not be able to clone anyone, but he is just the kind of person who might try. I don't know whether the publicity will make it harder or easier for him to try. . . . I used Seed to present the issues surrounding cloning, he says.

On the surface, the journalists seem to disagree. But they are intent on educating the public as well as informing them, and such is the creed of almost any science writers worth their salt. There is no denying that the sudden possibility of human cloning - considered the stuff of science fiction just ten months before - captured the fascination of the lay public, and more than a few ivory-towered scientists. Of course there are also looming ethical and regulatory conundrums to shake our heads at for years to come. Some science writers argue that although Seed is unlikely to succeed in his quest, the wide coverage serves as a forum and catalyst for public debate on a technological development that could transform our lives in the not so distant future. The question at hand seems to be, Is human cloning really likely to come around soon? Or will costs, technical limitations, and societal jitters keep cloning in the realm of science fiction far into the twenty-first century?

The answer, of course, depends upon which scientist, which regulator, and which science writer you ask. One could well argue that because part of the role of journalists is to interpret events (they have to, if only to decide which ones to chronicle in each day's edition), it is to society's benefit that different journalists - each with unique training, background, and ethical bent - should come to different conclusions about the newsworthiness of a planned cloning fertility clinic. Some wrote stories with a hint that investors should be smelling a moneymaker, while a few reported that such a scheme is unlikely to succeed, and serious discussion of the matter is premature. Other journalists focused on regulatory or ethical issues, while some listened to the NPR report, scanned the press releases, and chose to put the matter aside in favor of another topic they believed more deserving. Of course, quite a few listened to the report and then regurgitated it, with little analysis or helpful insight.

But such is the price we pay for freedom of the press. News coverage is probably forever doomed to be dicey. But there are good, meticulous science reporters out there producing thoughtful, intelligent news and analysis of research. They're out there. They're just not always easy to find.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of biotechnology and public policy issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


home | overview | blog | publications| about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1122 University Ave, Suite 100, Berkeley, CA 94702 • • (p) 1.510.665.7760 • (F) 1.510.665.8760