List date(s) this work was published or aired.
1-May-11
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Douglas Wallace, a founder of the field of human mitochondrial genetics, is a man on a four-decade mission to convince the scientific establishment that they’ve got it all wrong. Mitochondria, the oft-overlooked furnaces of our cells, play a central role in common, complex diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, Wallace argues — epidemics against which researchers and companies have spent billions of dollars but made arguably little progress. If medicine were to put mitochondria and the study of energy forefront and center, we could solve these maladies, he believes. But not everyone agrees with Wallace’s mitochondrial hypothesis. So is this renowned geneticist crazy? Or is he right?
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
A lengthy PubMed search on mitochondrial research was performed, followed by days of pouring through the literature to see what supported, or didn’t support, Wallace’s theory.
Explain types of human sources used.
I spent a day in Philadelphia with Wallace, touring his facilities and speaking about his hypothesis and evidence for it. In addition, at least six other experts in the field were interviewed for the piece.
Results:
The final piece was the cover story of the May issue of The Scientist.
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.
No.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
When I first heard Doug Wallace speak, I was intrigued, but his theories seem too big and crazy to be true. Then, a year later, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia gave him millions of dollars to open up a new research center focused on mitochondria. It was enough for me to think, “Hm, an established institution is throwing large amounts of money at this issue. Maybe it’s worth investigating.” So I did. But it can be nerve-wracking for a science journalist to write about a theory not widely accepted in the scientific community. If you can ground the theory in published research and speak with a wide swath of the community about it, and you still think it’s worth writing about, then it just might really be important.