The newsletter of the District of Columbia Science Writers Association [DCSWA] regularly asks a ques-tion of one of its members. A recent query went to John Carey, who covers science, technology, and medicine for Business Week. The question looked into the issue of reporters writing commentaries about subjects they cover on the news side.
Q. In the December 15 issue of Business Week, you’ve written
a full-page commentary that supports the decision by the Food and Drug Administration
to keep the drug Rezulin on the market while requiring a new label and safeguards.
You say “the
evidence to date suggests the U.S. made the correct call” when compared
with the British, who pulled the drug off the market because of its association
with liver injuries. My question deals less with the merits of the case
than the conflicts you face as a
reporter in commenting about a controversy involving regulators, manufacturers,
and others whom you cover regularly. How do you handle the shift from “reporting”
to “commentary”?
A. To be honest, I’ve never been thrilled about writing commentaries. In fact, the whole idea of journalists making sweeping judgments about complicated subjects after a mere day or two of reporting makes me decidedly uncomfortable. But my job requires that I occasionally take the plunge. It’s easier when the subject is something I’ve covered extensively. I’ve had few qualms about pointing out the meager scientific value of the space station, for instance, or suggesting that biomedical research dollars could be better spent. The diabetes drug commentary, however, was tougher. I’d originally written it as a straight story. But the editors always want one or two commentaries in the “News” section of the magazine—and, a few hours before closing, my story got picked. I put up a brief and futile resistance, arguing that it would take months or years to know definitively who was right.
The response: Just make a call, Carey. I briefly thought about taking the British side, in part to avoid the appearance of being too pro-industry and too pro-FDA, an agency I cover. But every diabetes expert I talked to believed the problem could be prevented and that Rezulin was a valuable drug. On a practical level, that meant I didn’t have any quotes to back up a pro-British line. More substantively, it tipped the balance towards the FDA position. Then it was just a simple matter of taking all the “many U.S. doctors believe” phrases out of the story to make it read like a commentary. Was I right? I hope so.