Lecture: Benedict Carey
RELATED:
Science journalists often steer clear of partisan politics, particularly during heated presidential campaigns. But when The New York Times science writer Benedict Carey came across a study, in 2004, which suggested that some people might be genetically predisposed to lean one way on certain social issues, he knew he had found a compelling topic.
In a panel held on February 22 at New York University and moderated by science writer Robert Lee Hotz of The Los Angeles Times, Carey discussed the journalistic process that took his story “Some Politics May be Etched in the Genes,” from the drawing board to the printing press.
While “scraping around” for story ideas, Carey, who covers human behavior and psychology for the Times, found himself trespassing in the realm of political science. He’d been perusing abstracts from a political science conference when he discovered a team of political scientists who had conducted a study to see how people’s genetic makeup might influence their thinking about political and social issues, such as taxes and abortion. Carey thought the study, based on twin research, was impressive.
The team of researchers, including Dr. John Alford of Rice University, Dr. John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, and Dr. Carolyn Funk of Virginia Commonwealth, examined survey data from two large continuing studies involving over 8000 sets of twins. From a collection of questions, the researchers took those relevant to political behavior. From there, they compared the responses given by identical twins with those provided by fraternal twins.
The researchers found that identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, agreed more often than fraternal twins, who share 50 percent of their genes, particularly on politically-charged social issues like school prayer and property taxes.
However, they also found that the twins’ self-identification with a political party, such as Democrat or Republican, was actually be more dependent on up-bringing and personal experiences than on genes. That finding could explain why some people switch party affiliation. For example, a person who is “genetically conservative” but who is raised Democrat may defect to the Republican Party.
The story wasn’t typical grist for the Science section of the Times, but Carey introduced it at his next staff meeting anyway. There he hit a stumbling block. “They all dumped on it,” he said. But Carey still saw potential in the story, so he decided to give it time to ripen. “I knew it was decent work and so I thought, ‘I’ll just, you know, sit on it,’” he said.
Because the study hadn’t been published yet, Carey thought that the findings wouldn’t be leaked. “I knew that the risk was pretty low, and [the researchers] wanted to get in The New York Times,” he said. But to solidify his claim, he called co-author Hibbing to let him know that he was still interested.
The turning point came, in 2005, when the esteemed political science journal, The American Political Science Review, published a feature on the study called “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” “That was really the trump card,” Carey said. According to Carey, some political and social scientists view genetic studies like the one he was interested in with suspicion because such studies contradict an assumption that social attitudes are culturally based. His editors were also skeptical of the science behind the research.
The published article made the findings seem credible and gave Carey’s story idea the footing it needed. “Here was the leading journal of political science publishing this stuff,” said Carey. “That, in itself, was a story, even if you don’t believe the science behind it.” At the next staff meeting, Carey pitched his story again. This time it was a hit.
All he had to do then was meet a 36-hour deadline. He’d already read the study and talked to researchers, so the major hurdle was translating the science jargon into layman’s terms. Scientific nomenclature can obscure the main point, Carey said. To ensure that his writing was clear, he envisioned his target audience. “I’ve got a couple of goofy brothers who are not particularly interested in the stuff,” Carey said. “[They] make fun of me if it’s too technical.”
Carey said his stories are usually based on “soft science,” as opposed to highly technical “hard science” subjects, like physics. “I’m serving soft-serve science,” he said. The twin study didn’t quite fit his mold. It was “the very, very hard end of soft science,” said Carey. He made the story more palatable by including an unexpected source: Zell Miller, the former Democratic governor and senator from Georgia, who caused a stir by speaking out against John Kerry at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Carey contacted Miller after researcher Alford cited the senator as an example of a person whose social beliefs appear to be out of line with his party’s. “If the person’s called out by name, I feel like you have to try to call him” to get his point of view, said Carey. His extra effort paid off: by including Miller’s comments, Carey’s story took a “lovely sort of left turn,” according to panel moderator Hotz. “It’s like a present for the reader.”
Apparently, contacting Miller was rewarding for Carey as well. “Zell Miller, you know he’s insane, but he’s got a sense of humor,” he said. And should he need additional pizzazz in any of his future articles, Carey knows where to turn. “I’ve got [Miller’s] cell phone number,” he said.