Michael Specter, "A Life of Its Own"

If any single word might describe the recent work of journalist Michael Specter, it would have to be “controversial.” Specter has emerged as a fierce champion of technology against all those who doubt the wisdom its unimpeded growth. Concerns about the effects of vaccines, bioengineering, and race-based research he attributes to an ignorance of science—made worse, in his view, by a disrespect for expertise as well as established institutions like the pharmaceutical industry. In his recent book Denialism (2009), Specter equates figures like Andrew Weil, a champion of alternative medicine, with people who reject evolution and the reality of climate change. The environmental organizations Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth he portrays as elitist and indifferent to the fate of the world’s starving millions. “Fifty years ago,” he writes, “we venerated technology.” Specter’s goal is clearly to restore that veneration, which he sees as more appropriate than ever, given the sheer magnitude of the problems we face.

In some ways the direction of Specter’s work might surprise those familiar with his distinguished career of balanced reporting. From 1985-1991 he covered local news for the Washington Post, eventually becoming its national science reporter and, later, its New York bureau chief. After four years as a roving correspondent in Rome, Specter was appointed Moscow Bureau chief for the New York Times, and he was one of the first journalists to bring the world’s attention to the rebellion in Chechnya. On the staff of The New Yorker since 1998, he has written about a wide variety of subjects from science, technology and public health to Italian fashion designers such as Prada, Valentino, and Manolo Blahnik. For his coverage of Chechnya he received the Overseas Press Club’s Citation for Excellence. He has twice been a recipient of the Global Health Council’s Excellence in Media Award, in 2001 for his story on AIDS entitled “India’s Plague,” and in 2004 for his article “The Devastation,” on the testing of H.I.V. vaccines in Africa. For his 2002 article “Rethinking the Brain” he received the AAAS Science Journalism Award.

Even though Specter has become something of a provocateur, deliberating adopting a polemical stance, the questions he poses are some of the most consequential of our time. As he observes of “synthetic biology”--the deliberate re-engineering of life--“No scientific achievement has promised so much, and none has come with greater risks or clearer possibilities for abuse.” While acknowledging that the benefits of new technologies have been “oversold” in the past, Specter insists that we should press on. Indeed, he describes this change as unstoppable.

Specter, Michael. “A Life of Its Own: Where Will Synthetic Biology Lead Us?” The New Yorker, September 28, 2009: 56, 58-65. Quotation on technology drawn from Michael Specter, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), 15. Biographical information from http://www.michaelspecter.com.

Links to Explore:

The Danger of Science Denial: a video of Michael Specter's TED talk.

Michael Specter on The Daily Show.

Michael Specter on The Colbert Report.

Michael Specter's New Yorker contributer page: includes links to all of Specter's articles for The New Yorker.

Questions for Connecting:

• In "Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead," Edward Tenner describes what he calls "revenge effects," the unintended consequences of technological innovation, no matter how carefully designed. Tenner portrays revenge effects as unavoidable, yet he concludes that "the prognosis" for technology in general is "hopeful." He believes that these effects can be kept "under control" because "technology too is evolving and responding." How well does Tenner's argument apply to bioengineering, and why might this be a different case than the one he considers? Could the costs of error simply prove too high, or does the new technology give us the tools to correct our mistakes in time?

• In "Rewilding North America," Caroline Fraser takes us on a tour of a project markedly different from Specter's synthetic biology. Rather than redesign nature to make it more amenable to our lives in a consumer society, rewilding sets out to change the human world in a way that will accomodate more of nature as it has existed for many millions of years. Which approach seems more likely to succeed, and why-changing nature, or changing how we live? Genetic technology would seem to hold the promise of more rapid economic growth, but is economic growth the only way to measure society's success? How might rewilding offer us a different image of well-being?

Explore some more:

Search for other links using Google: