1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"The Autie Advantage" by David Wolman.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
New Scientist magazine, May 2010.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
This story explores the ongoing mystery of autism and intelligence, and focuses on the research of one scientist whose work challenges previous findings about autism and mental deficits.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required?
How did this affect the work? I did not use any FOIA or public documents requests for this piece. I mostly read scientific papers and a lot of blogs, especially those written by people diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
I interviewed a number of scientists, doctors, and autism activists for this story. The lead researcher whom I was writing about is one of the most prickly, fascinating, verbose, difficult, disagreeable, and interesting characters I have ever met. Trying to tell her story and the story of her work may have been more difficult than any journalism work I have ever done.
6. Results (if any).
I can't really say there were any, or that I would want any. If I contributed somehow to the wider conversation about these incredibly thorny and emotional issues, that is really all that I could hope for.
7. 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 was a correction, to the effect that the lead character wasn't pleased with one aspect of her portrayal. I stepped out of the way for that process, so that the editor could address the source's concerns as she (the editor) saw fit. That being said, you have to understand the source. She doesn't like any journalists and never thinks journalists get it right. She has also told me on separate occasions that I'm a moron and that I've done her a grave disservice with my work, and that my writing about autism and intelligence as good, if not better, than anyone journalism out there. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but you get the idea. Hence the note about being prickly in the previous section. Meanwhile, many people with autism or who autism in their families have written me to commend my work and tell me how much this story meant to them.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Speak to 10 times the number of people than you think necessary. Be patient with your sources, and be humbled by the subject matter itself. Autism is one of the most mysterious conditions there is, and your article isn't going to change that.