- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?ref=politicalscience
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?ref=politicalscience
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/health/policy/white-house-and-fda-at-odds-on-regulatory-issues.html?ref=politicalscience
Provide names of other journalists involved.
Celia Dugger, series editor.
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Jan. 30, April 3, June 6, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Often in the United States today, scientific and medical truths are ignored — in favor of political or religious beliefs. Science reporters for The New York Times documented many such cases, and the harmful consequences. Denise Grady showed how the refusal by many Catholic universities to provide students with prescriptions for contraception damaged the health and well-being of women students. Gardiner Harris showed how the Food and Drug Administration was pressured by senior officials in the Obama Administration, itself under attack from conservatives, to drop, delay or weaken regulation of products from movie popcorn to emergency contraceptives — an approach that scientists at the agency said put politics ahead of science. And Pam Belluck revealed the misreading of the science of emergency contraceptive pills, known as morning-after pills and used by millions of women.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
The reporters immersed themselves in the medical and scientific studies on their topics, interviewed leading experts, and in some cases traveled to the states where the issues were playing out in people’s lives. Each story involved its own demanding research. For example, for her story on emergency contraceptives, Ms. Belluck reviewed hundreds of pages of documents from the Food and Drug Administration, poured through transcripts of Congressional hearings, and tracked down scientists scattered across Europe, Latin America and the United States who had been involved in a raft of studies over more than a decade.
Explain types of human sources used.
The reporters interviewed federal officials, scientists, politicians, and the people who were affected by the policies and scientific issues involved.
Results:
The team’s reporting on women’s health issues — particularly on contraception and abortion — raised the profile of these issues in a presidential election year when they had tremendous political salience. For example, Ms Grady’s story about Catholic universities that refuse to provide prescriptions for contraceptives through their health insurance plans proved prescient. It provided the scientific and human context for what became one of the major flashpoints of the presidential election: the Obama Administration’s regulations mandating contraceptive coverage under the new health care law. Her story was published before a Republican House committee barred Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke from testifying, before radio host Rush Limbaugh made Ms. Fluke a household name when he called her a slut and prostitute for her views and before the issue became part of the Democratic Party’s drive to paint the Republicans as waging a war on women. Ms. Belluck’s painstaking reporting on morning after pills changed the way some of the nation’s most important health institutions, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic, described how the contraceptives worked. They altered the wording on their websites to reflect the latest science, revealed by Ms. Belluck’s reporting. The F.D.A. took the rare step of publically acknowledging in her story that their labels on the pills were essentially wrong. And the agency has said it is working on a new version of its online birth control guide. An anti-abortion columnist in Wisconsin, Mike Nichols, was among those convinced by the article. He wrote: “Folks who, like me, consider themselves pro-life were once uneasy about the use of pills some claim are equivalent to abortion. But I’m guessing that large numbers are unaware of recent advances in understanding exactly how the morning-after pills, at least the most common type known as Plan B One-Step, actually work.” He added: “In fact, science and common sense suggests that more frequent use won’t cause an increase in abortion; it will, as a result of fewer unwanted pregnancies, cause just the opposite — a continuing decrease in abortion that everyone should be happy about.”
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 were no corrections or clarifications.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Examine the science as directly as you can – read the studies, speak with the scientists, search out thoughtful people on all sides of the debate and get beyond the political rhetoric. Then go find the people affected by the policies. And be persistent. These are fraught issues, particularly contraception and abortion. But reporters who are patient and polite are more likely to get the access needed to tell the full story. The same advice goes for government agencies reluctant to release public records or comment on scientific evidence that could make them look bad. Keep digging, and the more you know, the better the chances are that the agency will feel compelled to respond.