THE backlash was predictable. Clamour in the world鈥檚 media about the threat of H5N1 bird flu had been building up for months, and reached a climax when the virus arrived in western Europe. Now those stories are giving way to talk of scaremongering. 鈥淚t鈥檚 still only a disease of birds,鈥� goes the cry. 鈥淭hese people are trying to scare us to death over something that may never happen.鈥�
In the UK, the backlash struck after several weeks of headline news about a dead swan with H5N1, and an outbreak of a related strain in chickens. In the US, this week sees the screening of Fatal Contact: Bird flu in America, a 鈥渨hat if鈥� disaster movie. Already critics are asking if it is necessary to scare the public in this way.
The bird flu threat still exists, so what is going on? The truth is that the backlash arises largely from the nature of the news business. Nothing sells like a potential threat, especially one that elected politicians should be dealing with. Reporters even have a duty to dig out such threats. But that done, and after a short delay, someone will come along and say, 鈥淟ook, the threat didn鈥檛 materialise. They鈥檙e just crying wolf!鈥� That sells, too.
Advertisement
The resulting oscillations between stories about potential threats and dismissal of those stories probably go deeper than merely selling news. We humans harbour conflicting needs: to be warned of danger, and to be reassured, especially if the threat is one over which we have little control. So we buy into both types of story time and again.
The problem emerges when this see-sawing influences politicians and policy. The threat of pandemic flu could be hanging over us for many more of these cycles. H5N1 itself may continue its own oscillations between wild birds and poultry for years (see 鈥淎nimal apocalypse鈥�). It may never go pandemic, or it may happen this year. Our understanding of molecular biology and evolution means we know there is a threat that is too serious to ignore, yet we cannot say if or when it will become reality. In this respect it resembles other areas of science, such as predicting earthquakes and the damaging effects of climate change.
If we are warned of a threat that then fails to materialise, our natural reaction is suspicion. Eventually, the threat may lose its credibility, and governments may start to forget it. This must not be allowed to happen with bird flu. Our response should not depend on shifts in public anxiety that are based more on how the news media work than on facts. A scientific warning about pandemic flu is not 鈥渃rying wolf鈥�, even if does not happen tomorrow, next week, or at all. Forget the backlash, H5N1 bird flu remains a real threat.
