1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"DNA Deception" by Emily Ramshaw.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
February 22, 2010; March 9, 2010; May 18, 2010.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
When Texas health officials were sued in 2009 for storing infant blood samples without parental consent, they said it was for medical research into birth defects, childhood cancer and environmental toxins. They never said they were turning over hundreds of dried blood samples to the federal government to help build a vast DNA database, a forensics tool designed to identify missing persons and crack cold cases. A Texas Tribune review of nine years' worth of e-mails and internal documents on the Department of State Health Services' newborn blood screening program revealed the transfer of hundreds of infant blood spots to an Armed Forces lab to build a national and, someday, international mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) registry. The records, released after the state agreed last December to destroy more than 5 million infant blood spots, also showed an effort to limit the public's knowledge of aspects of the newborn blood program, and to manage the debate around it.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
The Texas Tribune filed extensive open records requests to gain access to the scientific documents surrounding the transfer of the baby blood spots, and to the internal emails and memos sent inside the state health agency that showed obvious disdain for the parents trying to safeguard their babies' blood samples. At one point, records turned over through an open records request were incomplete, and the Tribune had to go back to the agency to demand the complete files.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
The Tribune had extensive interviews with families concerned about the release of baby blood spots, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the attorneys who ended up negotiating the settlement, and the state health officials involved in handling damage control.
6. Results (if any).
State health officials destroyed more than 5 million newborn blood samples they had stored without consent. Despite efforts by privacy advocates, parents and lawmakers to reach a last-ditch accord to save the blood spots, they couldn't convince the Department of State Health Services to sign on. Lawmakers held a series of hearings with concerns over privacy and parental consent, and legislation is expected this
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
There have been no corrections or clarifications to this report.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Find a strong source inside the agency you're investigating, so you'll know if your open records requests are being fully filled!