The popular press just got hold of the idea that the time at which we have sexual intercourse may be encoded in our genes. As with other recently discovered genes, the presentation to the public can be often seen as disillusioned and the "sexual precociousness" gene is no exception.
Ewen Callaway for ABC News reported on March 31, 2009 that a "unique study of twins separated at birth finds a genetic link to the age at which a person first engages in sex" (Callaway, 2009). Right after he makes this broad shock-provoking statement he quotes one of the researchers from the first research article outlined by saying that there are heritable behavioral traits such as impulsivity that could help determine the age of first intercourse. Callaway notes that environmental factors may play a role in determining the age of virginity loss, but only mentions family environment and only mentions that the presence of these factors complicates the genetic linkage and does not disprove the genetic link.
Callaway explores the social effects not just the gene by citing the first research article "Age at first intercourse in twins reared apart: Genetic influence and life history events" and briefly overviews their methods. He then explores the gene that is possibly connected but gives absolutely no evidentiary support and does not even cite an article. He just claims that "another team previously found a version of a gene encoding for the neurotransmitter dopamine [that] is associated with age of first intercourse" (Callaway, 2009).
What is wrong with the presentation to the public?
Kua et al. published an article called "Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics," that explored what was "wrong" with how recent scientific findings in the genomics field were being reported to the public. Translating or relaying scientific findings to the public is not an easy task, especially due to the lack of scientific literacy. The true results of scientific studies often loose their context, weight and even legitimacy due to the inability of writers to capture the essence of the scientific process and their inability to convey the conclusions drawn from the unique problem solving methodology, essential to scientific progress. Kua et al. and many other writers recognize this problem and aim to not only pin-point the problems, but also fix them. The article, "Science in the news: a study reporting genomics," specifically reveals that popular press is not only changing how science news is presented but also what is being presented; and it is this subtle difference that raises concern among scientists, writers, and the public (Kua et al., 2004).
The bullet points below are the main "problems" when genomics research is presented to the public according to Kua et al. and other researchers. Now that we have a more in-depth understanding of the scientific research behind this particular genetic linkage we can explore the missing links and misrepresentations in the popular press article by ABC News.
- Problems conveying information and context
- First of all, for years of in-depth research behind the connection between age of intercourse and our genome this popular press article is extremely short. There is a lack of many things that Kua et al. identify as needing to be in genomics articles meant for the public. Although it is often difficult to balance the inclusion of data, methods and context due to language and academic barriers in the public, there needs to be a stronger effort to portray scientific research in an accurate way. Using quotes does not validate findings. The research data needs to be included to show evidence behind the conclusions being drawn. The article by ABC News only proves that popular press is changing not only how research findings are presented but what is being presented.
- There are obvious problems in conveying information and context in the ABC News article. Such as problems conveying the importance of limitations (that the research articles even explored) in the study and the importance of other factors that play a role in determining the age of first intercourse such as cultural and family environments, childhood sexual development and peer relationships.
- There is also an alarming lack of information behind the actual scientific genomics research behind the thought that the DRD4 gene is linked to age of first sexual intercourse. There is no context of this research and very little information provided. This makes the reader doubt the validity of the reporter and scientists.
- There is also a lack of information of the findings that puzzle scientists or the findings that researchers wish to explore more. There seems to be an illusion by popular press reporters that the public will believe what scientists say at face value, but in reality scientists do not have all the answers. Genomics is a new evolving field and questions arise every day in all sorts of research. The public needs to know that researchers do not have all the answers. One way to do this is to show readers the facts in diagrams and statistical data and let them see for themselves where researchers root their findings. Once the public sees the data they can choose to believe scientists or not. We should learn not to accept everything at face value . . . genomics and science is a changing field and researchers along with the public need to keep their minds open to change, questioning, and unknowns.
- Omission of qualifying statements. . . No evidence. . . No way to assess the scientific integrity of the new findings
- ABC News' article is full of quotations that are short and vague, such as: using twins, ". . .gives us a pure estimate about how much genes affect behavior" (Callaway, 2009). Why should we believe what this researcher is saying? There is no qualifying statement about the use of identical twins and fraternal twins in this statistical study in order to determine a genetic link. There is no explanation behind the fact that identical twins showed a higher correlation, compared to fraternal twins, between age of first intercourse, leading to the thought that a genetic factor might play a role due to that fact that these twins have the same DNA but were raised apart.
- There is also no evidence or qualifying statements behind the assumption that the DRD4 gene is the gene thought to play a role in the age of first intercourse. . . there is no citation in text or at the end of the article. Where is the public supposed to look for more justification and knowledge? I found the article about the DRD4 gene research from the citations in the article referenced by the popular press article ("Age at first intercourse in twins reared apart: Genetic influence and life history events").
- This article meant for the public needs to include more qualifying statements which needs to and can be done by using lay-men terms. Figures and tables will help to provide the opportunity to discuss qualifying statements.
- Lack of discussion of methodology. . . Does Not Include audience in puzzle solving
of scientific process
- Kua et al. says that "The knowledge of discoveries through scientific research will not be as useful or comprehensible if presented without an explanation of the process through which this knowledge has been gained" (Kua et al., 2004).
- Callaway briefly discussed the methodology in the article "Age at first intercourse in twins reared apart: Genetic influence and life history events" by noting the sample size, although he does cloud the meaning of the twin populations used. He says that "48 pairs of twins raised apart, as well as 23 individual twins." Not only is this statement missing multiple important factors such as the importance of using identical and fraternal sets of twins but the article says that 59 twins were studied (Segal et al., 2009). Clearly this is a misrepresentation of facts and shows no concern for the scientific integrity of the article or reporting the facts.
- The popular press article does not explore any other methodology. There is not evidentiary support behind quotes such as the quote of Segal's team which states that using twins allows them to determine a genetic factor. Callaway does not provide any support behind why this is so and does not explore the many limitations in only using non-DNA studies to prove correlation.
- Callaway also does not emphasize the main part of the article which explored other "life history events" (Segal et al., 2009) that correlated to an earlier age of first intercourse. He does mention that the article found that females who felt "unhappy and unfulfilled in their home life" (Segal et al., 2009) were more likely to have sex at an earlier age. This is firstly incorrect and completely understated. The article notes that later age of first intercourse was correlated with "happiness relative to peers and feelings of fulfillment in the rearing home" (Segal et al., 2009). Segal et al. emphasize that it was the peer environment and not the home environment that affected age of first intercourse (Segal et al., 2009).
- In exploring the role of the DRD4 gene to the age of loss of virginity Callaway gives NO methodology at all. He does not reference the team that has done this research and leaves the reader to take his word and the quote of the scientists. The lack of information here leaves the public to doubt the validity of this statement.
- When Callaway does not spend time analyzing the methods used by scientists the integrity of the research is compromised because the scientific process, so essential to understanding research findings, is not highlighted.
- Change in emphasis
- Although Callaway does not drastically change the emphasis, he also uses shock factor to draw people in and extrapolates some of the findings. He portrays the connection between genes and age of loss of virginity as a fact and yet the science articles emphasize the role of many many other factors playing a role in determining age of first intercourse. Callaway notes that other factors make it difficult to "discern" the effects of genes, but makes it seem that these factors stand in the way and do not play an extremely important role in determine age of loss of virginity.
- In my opinion there needs to be a stronger emphasis on the social and economic and developmental factors that both of these articles discuss as playing a role in determining age of first intercourse. This needs to be done to ensure a similar emphasis as the other research articles.
- He also seems to emphasize that the researchers found that the age of first sexual intercourse was younger for participants who were born later. This is most certainly not the goal of either articles. Although this trend is discussed in the methodology of "Age at first intercourse in twins reared apart: Genetic influence and life history events" it is discussed because the sampling groups must be divided in order to strengthen the statistical genetic study (Segal et al., 2009). Why would Callaway decide to include this unimportant piece of information instead of data that supports the findings he so blatantly claims?
- Overstatement of the generalizability of the data
- Callaway does not reference any sort of data, he just states that researchers found this genetic trend by following these methods.
- He undermines the researchers' findings because he does not provide evidence. In not providing evidence there is a over generalization of the data.
- He also over generalizes when he says that another research team found a gene connection of age of loss of virginity but provides no support and no reference. This is an extreme overstatement of the extensive research done in the field of the DRD4 gene (Guo et al., 2006).