A Gleam in the Public Eye: An Analysis of Cross-National Differences in Media Coverage of the Ethical and Social Issues Regarding Newborn Genetic Screening

This presentation elucidates public perceptions about public health genetics (PHG) by comparing media representation of newborn screening (NBS) for genetic conditions in five countries: the US, the UK Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These Anglo-American countries share a love of technology and commitment to policies that balance public and private sectors. However, they differ dramatically in the scope of NBS, whether it is mandatory, how new conditions are selected for screening, and how ethical concerns are conceived and addressed.

The U.S. has historically lagged in public health surveillance, yet is at the forefront of embracing and expanding NBS. We hypothesize that this surprising American exceptionalism results from concerns about medical costs, robust disease-group advocacy, and competitive pressures among states. Since public understanding of medical technologies is, in Peter Conrad's evocative phrasing, "shaped by the everyday work of the media as well as by concerted efforts to influence the public's conceptions,” cross-national analysis of NBS coverage yields key insights about how this important PHG practice is framed, communicated, and perpetuated.

Our study tested the hypotheses mentioned above by coding for content all major print media coverage of NBS 1965-2007. Our analysis revealed a number of policy-relevant patterns, such as the dominant influence of parent advocacy on NBS expansion and lack of media representation of key ethical issues identified in the clinical and academic literature. These results highlight the need for more balanced media coverage of PHG as we embrace the challenge of effectively translating genetic research into improved health.