- http://www.freep.com/article/20120805/NEWS06/308050233
- http://www.freep.com/article/20120923/NEWS06/309230153
- http://www.freep.com/article/20121117/NEWS06/112230002
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
ALS package: Aug. 5 and 6, 2012 PBB story: Sept. 23, 2012 Stem cell story: Nov. 18, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
This entry covers four stories. In August, a two-day package explored a clinical trial using stem cells drawn from an aborted fetus and injected into patients’ spines, in an attempt to cure deadly amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gerhig’s disease. In September, the Free Press examined health problems possibly rooted in a 1970s Michigan agricultural disaster in which a toxic flame retardant known as polybrominated biphenyl was mixed in cattle feed and, in turn, spread into the food chain statewide. Finally, a November story walked readers through the world of human stem cell research, including controversial embryonic stem cells — work that was made possible in Michigan just four years ago after voters lifted a ban on embryonic research.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
In the ALS stories, some of the clinical trial investigators were initially skeptical of the story the Free Press proposed, and the story could have ended before the first on-the-record interview. By studying their previous research papers (some of which were requested from peer-reviewed journals) as well as a number of reports from easily accessed government sites (e.g. www.clinicaltrials.gov), the reporter not only found context for the package but also convinced reluctant investigators of her ability to relay a complex medical story to the everyday reader. In the case of PBB, the toxic mix-up poisoned Michigan’s cattle occurred nearly 40 years ago. That meant most documents, photographs, reports and old news stories had to be pulled from old state files and located on the rarely used shelves of a small-town library several hours drive from the newsroom. These papers led to valuable interviews, including with one of the farmers whose family shot its entire herd in one heartbreaking morning and the veterinarian who helped discover the toxic mix-up. Finally, the stem cell story relied on on-line information on clinical trials and business ventures, as well as public documents from other states for a comparison to Michigan’s research funding.
Explain types of human sources used.
In the case of ALS, clinical trial investigators in Atlanta were originally hesitant to allow the reporter (and videographer) from Detroit in their operating room. Several weeks of discussions finally gave the team access to the operating room — an experience crucial to placing the reader in the middle of this audacious research. The PBB story led the reporter around the middle part of Michigan, to several small towns and finally to an isolated, unmarked swath of land known only to a few state inspectors and the town’s oldest residents. It was the site where thousands of poisoned farm animals were hauled, killed and buried. Only through on-the-ground, personal interviews was the reporter able to truly understand and describe the lingering effect of this tragedy to those whose farms were destroyed and those who live and play and work with toxins underfoot today. Human embryonic stem cell research — the focus of the last of these four stories — is a fledgling science. Key to reporting this story were the on-the-ground personal interviews with researchers passionately chasing cures and the patients awaiting them — all with the understanding that those answers may be years away.
Results:
ALS package: The University of Michigan emailed the series to subscribers, tweeted the stories, and requested dozens of hard copies of the series for its governing council, leadership advisory boards and others. ALS of Michigan reported that calls and emails spiked after the stories PBB story: As a consent agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the former manufacturer of the flame retardant expired, the reporting became part of the discussion between the community and government officials.
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 corrections or challenges to the stories.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
While background understanding is important to any story, it’s absolutely essential when it comes to understanding complicated science, convincing researchers that you can do the job, asking the right questions, and getting it right for readers.