List date(s) this work was published or aired.
1-Nov-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
A genetic panel intended to predict the risk of developing autism debuted for clinical use in April, another is in commercial development and a third was published in Molecular Psychiatry in September. But some experts are concerned, saying the tests are based on preliminary scientific evidence.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
I read several scientific papers to supplement my reporting, which are referenced at the bottom of the piece.
Explain types of human sources used.
The story began with an announcement from a company that it had developed a new “predictive” genetic test for autism. So my sources were company leaders as well as several scientists not affiliated with the company who could comment on the test objectively. Almost everyone I talked to was extremely skeptical of the test, and two scientists gave me their criticisms off the record. I also spoke with the doctor who is leading a clinical trial on behalf of the company.
Results:
N/A
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.
N/A
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Companies are fun to write about. They’re often at the forefront of innovation, which has obvious news value. They’re also prone to promoting a lot of information that’s not based in scientific evidence, and this deception, too, is worth writing about. It’s essential to talk to a lot of people outside of the company’s sphere of influence to get a handle on how promising (or questionable) their product is.