PUBLIC OPINION ON DNA PATERNITY TESTING: THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDIA
Michael Gilding and Lyn Turney There has been a substantial shift of opinion among Australians in support of DNA paternity testing without the knowledge of the mother. The shift has been driven by the influence of the media, fanned by the fathers’ rights movement. By far the most contentious public poli- paternity testing industry, and its cy issue in relation to DNA paternity articulation with the media. Second, it testing is the status of those tests conduct- describes the small literature on public ed without the knowledge or consent of perceptions of DNA paternity testing, in the mother. Such tests are usually ar- particular the 2003 Swinburne National ranged by men, and involve comparison Technology and Society Monitor of samples from a man and his putative (SNTSM). Third, it describes the findings child. On this account they are often de- of the 2005 SNTSM, which replicated scribed as ‘motherless tests’, although not questions from the 2003 SNTSM. Finally, all motherless tests are done without the the article explores the implications of the knowledge of the mother. The tests are findings. currently legal in most jurisdictions, but they do not have standing in a court of THE INDUSTRY AND THE MEDIA law. ‘DNA fingerprinting’, as it became In 2003 a representative national known, was invented in 1984. Paternity telephone survey found that there was testing was one of its main applications substantial diversity and uncertainty from the start, second only to forensics. among Australians regarding the tests; The tests were much more accurate than more Australians were ‘uncomfortable’ the serological (or blood-based) testing with the tests than were ‘comfortable’; that had been used before. From the late and gender was not a significant variable 1980s, the use of DNA-based paternity shaping these responses. Since 2003 testing increased rapidly. In the US the media coverage of DNA paternity testing number of paternity tests increased from has escalated dramatically. This coverage 143,459 cases per annum in 1991 (86 per has overwhelmingly focussed upon cent of them serological) to more than ‘celebrity’ cases, or ‘paternity fraud’ cases 350,000 cases in 2003 (99.8 per cent of where men prosecute their former wives them DNA based).1 In Australia there are or partners for claiming child support no public records on the number of pater- under false pretences. nity tests, but industry sources suggest that Given the extent of media coverage, the number of cases increased from about there is good cause to suggest that public 1000 to 4000 per annum during the same opinion might have shifted on the period.2 question of whether paternity testing Notwithstanding rapid growth of the without the knowledge of the mother is paternity testing industry, the number of acceptable or not. This article reports on tests was still tiny relative to population. evidence that this is indeed the case. First, Their main application, after all, was the it provides background on the DNA enforcement of child support payments by
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 4 government agencies. By 2003 there were billboards.7 Yet media coverage has still about 1.25 tests per 1000 people per played a pivotal role in people’s annum in the US and, in Australia, about understanding of the tests. A 2003 0.25 tests per 1000.3 In other words, most Australian focus-group study found that people did not have personal experience the 32 participants in the four focus groups of the tests. By implication, their overwhelmingly obtained their knowledge knowledge of the tests mostly came of DNA paternity testing through the through the media. Accordingly, the media. Participants referred to: American analyis of public perceptions necessarily talk shows, such as Jerry Springer and focuses upon the influence of the media. Ricki Lake; television dramas, such as As it happens, since the 1990s there CSI, The Bold and the Beautiful and has been immense media coverage of Stingers; television advertisements for paternity testing. In the US the media commercial paternity services; and coverage has been heavily promoted by newspaper and television current affairs the paternity testing industry.4 It has also coverage, notably recent court cases been fanned by fathers’ rights activists, whereby men had taken legal action unhappy with the family law system and against their wives following discovery of its effects on men in the event of divorce. misattributed paternity. Participants These activists have seized upon DNA tentatively quoted the media as their paternity tests as a vehicle for their cause, source for claims that between 20 and 30 uncovering ‘paternity fraud’.5 The US per cent of offspring were instances of sociologist Dorothy Nelkin observes: misattributed paternity. Only one Tabloids pursue cases of paternity fraud: participant declared that she knew ‘Who’s the daddy?’ Soap operas and somebody who had undertaken a DNA television dramas revolve around the paternity test.8 tensions and uncertainties of paternity— Since 2003 media coverage of DNA uncertainties to be resolved by genetic paternity testing has escalated in Australia. tests. Television shows feature ‘live’ A rough indication of this process is the paternity testing, as on the Montel Factiva online database, measuring Williams Show. The paternity struggles newspaper coverage across various topics. of celebrities, from Thomas Jefferson to Factiva identified 63 Australian Bill Cosby, from Yves Montand to newspaper articles concerned with Hollywood producer Steve Bing, are paternity testing in 2000, 50 in 2003, and displayed in the news. Advice columnists 114 in 2005.9 Coverage reached a high advise their readers to resolve their water mark in March 2005, when it was suspicions by getting tested. Highway revealed that the Commonweath Minister billboards attract commuters to genetic for Health, Tony Abbott, was not the testing firms. Especially important are biological father of his alleged exnuptial the growing number of Web sites that are son, a young man who had made contact providing information, advertisements, with him some 26 years after being placed and promotional discussions about the out for adoption at birth. As sociologists value of paternity testing. The public is doing research on the social implications bombarded with media palaver.6 of paternity testing, we (the authors) found In Australia the paternity testing ourselves swept along by the media frenzy, industry is much less aggressive in doing 48 interviews for television, radio promoting the tests; there are no home- and the press over the span of a few grown ‘live’ television shows, and no weeks.
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 5 In the US context, Nelkin observes contrary, most tests—in both the US and that the ‘media blitz’ attending instances Australia—are driven by unmarried of misattributed paternity consistently mothers seeking irrefutable proof of assumes that ‘infidelity and paternity paternity in order to obtain child support. fraud are so rampant that there are real In the Australian context, the firm Genetic reasons for suspicion’.10 We had the same Technologies—the largest provider of experience in the course of the media tests—estimates that about 70 per cent of frenzy around Tony Abbott. As already tests are driven by mothers enforcing discussed in an earlier article for People child support payments on reluctant and Place, interviewers consistently fathers. Genetic Technologies also report asked us about the true extent of that the exclusion rate for all tests is about misattributed paternity.11 We both insisted 20 per cent, whereas the exclusion rate that the figures commonly cited— for ‘motherless tests’ done without the between 10 and 30 per cent—were knowledge or consent of the mother is improbable. Our observations had little about 10 per cent.14 (The exclusion rate effect. Media stories regularly reported is the number of putative fathers per 100 high rates of misattributed paternity. This tests whom tests exclude from the bias was highlighted by the fact that one possibly of actually being the father.) To of the authors of this paper (Lyn Turney) put it another way, nine out of ten men was erroneously cited in one Queensland who have a test without the consent of newspaper as the author of a study that the mother are actually found to be the found a 20 per cent non-paternity rate!12 biological father of the child in question. In fact, there is no evidence to support Even so, there have been calls from claims of a non-paternity rate of between fathers’ rights activists and experts alike 10 to 30 per cent in western countries. In for mandatory testing at birth to uncover the wake of the Tony Abbott story, the the extent of misattributed paternity and other author of this paper (Michael to avert altogether the possibility of Gilding) marshalled all of the available paternity fraud. evidence—medical studies, sex surveys, Briefly, most people depend upon the records of DNA testing laboratories media coverage for their knowledge of and genetic studies—concerning DNA paternity testing, but media misattributed paternity. The resulting coverage is highly selective at best, and article suggested that the true extent of inaccurate at worst. It consistently misattributed paternity in western presents a view that misattributed countries is ‘closer to one per cent, and paternity is widespread, and that tests are not more than three per cent’.13 It is motivated by ‘paternity fraud’. It would revealing that there was little media be surprising if this view did not influence interest in this story. It was too much of a public opinion. ‘non story’. It is tempting to imagine what the media interest would have been in the PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS event of a much higher estimate. A pioneering survey of public perceptions The media account of DNA paternity of DNA paternity testing was conducted testing is also misleading in its focus upon in the early 2000s by Lisa Hayward and ‘paternity fraud’. Industry sources and Sievert Rohwer, sociobiologists in Seat- available records leave no doubt that most tle, USA. The respondents were 655 paternity tests are not driven by men first-year university students, supple- suspicious of ‘paternity fraud’. On the mented by 78 adults recruited from
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 6 outside a drivers’ licensing office and at In relation to DNA paternity testing, the gates of an airport! The researchers, the 2003 SNTSM asked ‘how guided by their sociobiological frame- comfortable’ respondents were with work, expected that men would favour testing in a variety of contexts, using a routine paternity testing more than wom- scale from 0 (‘not at all comfortable’) to en, on account of ‘selective pressure for 10 (‘very comfortable’). Respondents mechanisms ensuring certainty of pater- were extremely comfortable with DNA nity’.15 Their hypothesis was supported. paternity testing where all parties agreed They found that 50 per cent of the men in to the test (mean = 9); that is, they were their sample favoured routine testing, very comfortable with consensual testing. compared with 32 per cent of women. Respondents were less comfortable with They were, however, puzzled by the 50 the scenario whereby mandatory DNA per cent of men in their sample who did testing was used to enforce child support not favour paternity testing. ‘Perhaps’, (mean = 7.1). They were less comfortable they speculated, ‘a “polymorphism” again with paternity testing without the among men in their attitude towards rou- knowledge of the mother (mean = 4.9). tine paternity testing implied a mixed On this question there was evidence of strategy among males, suggesting that in both polarisation and uncertainty. The our evolutionary history cuckoldry was most common response was 0 (‘not at all common’.16 In other words, they interpret- comfortable’), nominated by 18.8 per cent ed their results in a way that was of the sample; the second most common consistent with their sociobiological response was 5 (indicating uncertainty, framework, and its incorrect assumption ambivalence or indifference), nominated that misattributed paternity is both natu- by 16.4 per cent; and the third most ral and widespread. common response was 10 (‘very The first ever representative survey of comfortable’), nominated by 14.5 per public perceptions of DNA paternity cent.18 testing was conducted through the 2003 Although the 2003 SNTSM questions Swinburne National Technology and were not strictly comparable with the US Society Monitor (SNTSM), a national study, sociobiologists would presumably telephone survey of a random sample of predict that men would be more likely Australian residents aged 18 and over than women to favour paternity testing concerning attitudes to emerging without the knowledge of the mother. This technologies . Of those contacted, 30 per was not the case. The only significant cent responded, resulting in 1044 difference between men and women in respondents. The survey included 2003 occurred in relation to the questions specifically directed towards uncontroversial question about DNA perceptions of DNA paternity testing. It paternity testing when all parties agreed also included a general question that to the tests, with women more likely to asked how much respondents trusted feel comfortable.19 The fact that men and various organisations and institutions for women were equally polarised and information about new technologies, uncertain in relation to testing without the using a scale from 5 (‘trust a very great knowledge of the mother suggests— deal’) to 0 (‘don’t trust at all’). ‘The contrary to socio-biological accounts—the media’ was by far the least trusted importance of social dynamics rather than institution—its mean trust rating was ‘hard wiring’ in relation to attitudes to 1.64.17 paternity testing. It also implies that such
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 7 attitudes are liable to change over time. information about new technologies, In 2005, in the wake of extensive media using a scale from 5 (‘trust a very great coverage on the issue, this proposition deal’) to 0 (‘don’t trust at all’). As was was put to the test. the case in 2003, respondents rated the media the least credible source of CHANGING ATTITUDES—THE information from thirteen given 2005 SNTSM categories of people and organisations: The 2005 SNTSM replicated the ap- the media received a mean trust rating of proach and methods of the 2003 SNTSM. 1.64, the same rating as it had received in The survey was conducted by telephone, 2003. The most highly rated institutions and the sample was drawn from Austral- were again the Commonwealth Scientific ian residents aged 18 and over. Of those and Industrial Resesarch Organisation contacted, 25 per cent responded, result- (CSIRO) (3.83), universities (3.62) and ing in 1013 respondents. The 2005 hospitals (3.49). SNTSM also replicated large sections of Replication of the 2003 paternity the 2003 interview schedule, including testing questions: In relation to DNA questions on DNA paternity testing. paternity testing, the 2005 SNTSM again Trust in the media: The 2005 SNTSM asked how comfortable respondents were replicated the 2003 question on how much with testing in a variety of contexts, using respondents trusted various ‘people and a scale from 0 (‘not at all comfortable’) organisations’ to provide them with to 10 (‘very comfortable’). The three
Figure 1: Comfort over time with DNA paternity testing without the knowledge of the mother
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 8 contexts and wording replicated the 2003 with motherless testing, Figure 1 shows SNTSM: how there was a substantial shift in • DNA testing of a father and child to patterns of comfort across the rating scale. see whether he actually is the father— The most common response was now 10 where all parties have agreed to the or ‘very comfortable’ (24.3 per cent of test. respondents, compared with 14.5 per cent •Mandatory testing of a father and in 2003); the second most common child to establish whether he actually response was 5 (15.5 per cent), indicating is the father, so that he can be made to uncertainty, ambivalence or indifference; pay Child Support. and the third most common response was • DNA testing of a father and child to 8 (12.4 per cent). In contrast, in 2003 the see whether he actually is the father— most common response had been 0 or ‘not where the test is conducted without at all comfortable’ (18.8 per cent), the knowledge of the mother whereas in 2005 only a little over half this [‘motherless testing’]. number of respondents (10.6 per cent) Increase in comfort with ‘motherless were ‘not at all comfortable’ and thus testing’: By far the most significant strongly against motherless testing. change from 2003 to 2005 was the general Trend in the direction that men are public’s level of comfort with paternity driving the change: Between 2003 and testing without the knowledge of the 2005 both men and women became mother. Here the mean level of comfort significantly more comfortable with was 6.1 in 2005, compared with 4.9 in ‘motherless testing’.20 That is, the change 2003 (p<.0005). Although respondents of attitude was driven by both men and were still only moderately comfortable women. In both years more men than
Figure 2: Mean comfort with motherless testing by year and gender
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 9 women were comfortable with such testing was used to enforce child support testing—but in neither year was the (mean = 7.4, compared with 7.1 in 2003). difference statistically significant. Then In other words, in 2005 people remained again, it is unlikely that the difference was significantly less comfortable with non- a product of chance in both surveys. consensual testing to enforce child Moreover, Figure 2 shows that the support than with testing where all people difference was greater in 2005 than 2003, agreed. so the trend was towards significance.21 New questions on mandatory testing By implication, the growing support for at birth: The 2005 SNTSM also asked two DNA paternity testing without the questions about mandatory paternity knowledge of the mother in 2005 was testing at birth. This was in response to probably driven by men more than by media coverage of this issue, closely women.22 associated with the fathers’ rights Comparison with other contexts: movement. As it happens, these questions There was no significant change over time also tapped into the issue of routine testing for other contexts in which DNA paternity as addressed by Hayward and Rohwer, testing occurs. More specifically, there albeit in terms that placed more emphasis was no significant change in comfort on a legal requirement to undertake the where all parties agreed to the test (mean tests. Specifically, respondents were = 9.1, compared with 9.0 in 2003). Nor asked about how comfortable they were was there a significant change in support with DNA testing in the following for the scenario whereby mandatory DNA contexts:
Figure 3: Comfort with compulsory DNA paternity testing at birth Per cent
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 10 • compulsory DNA testing of all babies was framed in the more personal terms at birth to check paternity of ‘a compulsory DNA paternity test for • having a compulsory DNA paternity your own baby at birth’, the mean level test for your own baby at birth. of comfort was 6.6, indicating that people Low support for mandatory testing at were significantly more comfortable with birth: There was less support for the idea of testing their own baby at birth mandatory testing at birth than for testing than with the general testing of everyone without the knowledge of the mother. (p<.0005). As shown in Figure 4, the most Here the mean level of comfort with common response was 10 or ‘very mandatory testing at birth was 5.2 comfortable’ (a massive 40.0 per cent of compared with 6.1, a highly significant respondents), followed a long way behind difference (p<.005). Again, as shown in by the 0 or ‘not at all comfortable’ Figure 3, the distribution of responses response (13.8 per cent). About three indicated a mix of polarisation and times as many respondents stated that they uncertainty on this question. The most were ‘comfortable’ compared with those common response was 10 or ‘very who stated that they were ‘not at all comfortable’ (19.2 per cent), followed by comfortable’. Presumbly participants 0 or ‘not at all comfortable’ (16.2 percent), were no longer responding to the issue of and then the in-between value of 5 (15.0 mandatory testing per se. They were at percent). least partly responding to the suggestion More support for mandatory testing of possible doubt about the paternity of at a personal level: When the question their own children. As they had no doubts
Figure 4: Comfort—DNA paternity testing for your own child at birth
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 11 on this matter, compulsory testing of their wake of high-level media coverage on the own children at birth did not concern most issue, the balance of opinion was in favour of them. of such testing. The shift occurred among Contrary to the sociobiological both men and women, but more so among hypothesis (and the US non-representative men. study by Hayward and Rohwer), there was The most likely explanation for this no significant difference in the comfort shift of opinion is the high-level media levels of men and women in relation to coverage during this period. Most people mandatory testing at birth, whether framed do not have personal experience of in general or personal terms. As in 2003, paternity testing, and necessarily rely upon there was also no significant difference the media for information about it. between men and women in relation to Ironically they have little trust in the media testing in order to enforce child support as a source of information about new payments. technologies. Moreover, in the case of paternity testing there is good reason for DISCUSSION this view. The media consistently According to the sociobiological para- exaggerates the extent of misattributed digm, men and women have evolved in paternity. It also consistently misrepresents ways that cause them to have fundamen- the underlying dynamics of paternity tally different interests in relation to testing, highlighting ‘paternity fraud’ at the misattributed paternity. Accordingly, so- expense of the need to test for child support ciobiologists hypothesise that men and purposes—the most common usage of women will have very different attitudes paternity testing. towards paternity testing. The SNTSM, the The shift of opinion is good news for most comprehensive and reliable surveys the fathers’ rights movement. The fathers’ on paternity testing conducted anywhere rights movement has actively defended in the world so far, unambiguously refutes paternity testing without the knowledge of this hypothesis. For the most part, in 2003 the mother, and strongly pressed its case and 2005 Australian men and women held through the courts and the media. It has much the same views on paternity testing. consistently maintained that misattributed Most significantly, they held the same paternity is widespread, and that paternity views in relation to mandatory testing— fraud is the main rationale for paternity both in abstract terms, and in relation to testing. This framework has been largely their own children. These are the scenari- adopted by the media. The fathers’ rights os in which sociobiologists predict most movement can take satisfaction that its difference. By implication, such attitudes view is gaining ground in the court of are not ‘hard wired’ in men and women. public opinion—especially among men. They are socially and historically con- The shift of opinion provides a structed. revealing insight into the articulation In more specific terms, the SNTSM between the media and public opinion. The indicates that between 2003 and 2005 there fact that most people say that they are was a significant shift in Australian public distrustful of the media as a source of opinion in relation to the most information about new technologies does controversial aspect of paternity testing. In not mean that they are not influenced by 2003 the balance of public opinion was it. It remains to be seen whether this shift against paternity testing without the in public opinion will persist in the wake knowledge of the mother. By 2005, in the of on-going media coverage of the issue,
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 12 or whether the public’s distrust of the family: the articulation between biotechnolo- media will assert itself as the technology gy and family relationships, politics and policy’. becomes more familiar. The authors are grateful to Vikki Bunton, Helen McDonald and Michelle Bell for their excel- Acknowledgments lent research support on this project. They are also indebted to other members of the SNTSM This research was conducted as part of an Aus- team at Swinburne: Christine Critchley, Karen tralian Research Council Discovery Grant Farquharson, Elizabeth Hardie and Simone DP0450010 ‘Genetic identity testing and the Buzwell.
References 1 American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) (1992–2004) Annual Report Summary for Testing 1991– 2003 Bethesada MD: AABB (typescripts) 2 M. Gilding, ‘DNA paternity testing without the knowledge or consent of the mother: new technology, new choices, new debates’, Family Matters, Australian Institute of Family Studies, no. 68, Winter, 2004, p. 70 3 M. Gilding, ‘DNA Paternity Tests: A comparative analysis of the US and Australia’, Health Sociology Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 2006, p. 84 4 M. Gilding, ‘Rampant misattributed paternity: the creation of an urban myth’, People and Place, vol. 13, no. 2, 2005, pp. 7–8; Gilding op cit., 2006, pp. 91–3 5 M. R. Anderlik and M.A. Rothstein, ‘DNA-based identity testing and the future of the family: a research agenda’, American Journal of Law & Medicine, vol. 28, 2002, p. 220; D. Nelkin, ‘Paternity palaver in the media: selling identity tests’, in M.A. Rothstein, T.H. Murray, G.E. Kaebnick and M. Anderlik Majumder (Eds), Genetic Ties and the Family: The Impact of Paternity Testing on Parents and Children, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2005, p. 9; Gilding, op. cit., 2004, pp. 68–75 6 Nelkin, op. cit., p. 4 7 Gilding, op. cit., 2006, pp. 91–3 8 L. Turney, M. Gilding, C. Critchley, P. Shields, L. Bakacs and K. Butler, ‘Genetic paternity testing: public perceptions and the influence of gender’, Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003, pp. 21–37
People and Place, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, page 13