- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/health/in-gene-sequencing-treatment-for-leukemia-glimpses-of-the-future.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/health/new-frontiers-of-cancer-treatment-bring-breathtaking-swings.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/genetic-test-changes-game-in-cancer-prognosis.html
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
July 8-9-10, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
In a promising new front in the war on cancer, scientists are trying to use genetics to stop a disease that is expected to kill nearly 600,000 Americans this year alone. The goal is to use new tools to decode a cancer patient’s own specific tumor and determine exactly what mutations are driving it. Then doctors try to find an existing or an experimental drug that attacks those alterations. This series looks in depth at several cases of different types of cancer.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Intensive review of the literature on different types of cancer and on genome sequencing.
Explain types of human sources used.
Kolata spent a year talking to leading researchers and reading articles in major medical journals to determine whether this area was the one with the most promise. Then there was the challenge of finding brave patients who would allow her to follow along as genetic testing was tried.
Results:
Hundreds of online comments. The articles “are the most scientifically sophisticated, most generally readable, and most cutting-edge coverage EVER,” wrote Eric Lander of the Broad Institute, a director of the Human Genome Project, the federal program that sequenced human DNA a decade ago. “What a tremendous service to the world.”
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.
Part 3 required two small corrections.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Cutting-edge science must be approached with both an open mind and a skeptical one. The temptation to succumb to hype and gee-whiz journalism is strong. Scientists become invested in their research — financially and emotionally — and it takes persistence to separate the promising results from the disappointing or illusory ones.