Genetic optimism:Framing genes and mental illness in the news

Over the past two decades the pace and specificity of discoveries associating genetics with mental illness has accelerated, which is reflected in an increase in news coverage about the genetics of mental disorder. The news media is a major source of public understanding of genetics and a strong influence on public discourse. This paper examines the news coverage of genetics and mental illness (i.e., bipolar illness and schizophrenia) over a 25 year period, emphasizing the peak period of 1987-1994. Using a sample of 110 news stories from 5 major American newspapers and 3 news magazines, we identify the frame of "genetic optimism" which dominated the reporting of genetics and mental illness beginning in the mid-1980s. The structure of the frame is comprised of 3 elements: a gene for the disorder exists; it will be found; and it will be good. New discoveries of genes were announced with great fanfare, but the most promising claims could not be replicated or were retracted in short order. Despite these disconfirmations, genetic optimism persisted in subsequent news stories. While the scientific accuracy of the gene stories is high, the genetic optimism frame distorts some of the findings, misrepresents and reifies the impact of genes on mental disorder, and leaves no space for critics or an examination of potential negative impacts. The stances of reporters, scientists and editors may all in different ways contribute to the perpetuation of genetic optimism. Genetic optimism presents an overly sanguine picture of the state of genetics; as we enter the genetic age it is important to balance the extraneous "hype and hope" contained in news stories of genetics and mental illness.

State power matters: power, the state and political struggle in the post-war American novel

This article is concerned with resituating the state at the centre of the analytical stage and, concomitantly, with drawing attention to the dangers of losing sight of the state as a locus of power. It seeks to uncover the relationship between two related lines of critical inquiry: Marxist and Foucauldian theories of the state; and the attempts by three postwar American novelist (Ken Kesey, William Burroughs and E.L. Doctorow) to determine the nature and extent of this power and to consider under what conditions political struggle might be possible. It argues that such a move is needed because recent critical analysis has been too preoccupied by corporeal micropolitics and global macropolitics, and that the postwar American novel can help us in this move because it is centrally concerned with the repressive potentiality of the US state. It maintains that the resuscitation of Marxist state theories in early 1970s and a debate between Poulantzas and Foucault is intriguingly foreshadowed and even critiqued by these novels. Consequently, it concludes that these novels constitute an unrecognized pre-history of what would become one of the key intellectual debates of the late twentieth century: an engagement between Marxist and post-structuralist conceptions of the power and resistance.