(2 of 5)
So what happened last week? On one level this is a case of science journalism gone awry. Although the original story in the New York Times, written by influential science reporter Gina Kolata, was sprinkled with the necessary caveats, it distorted the significance of EntreMed's research in several important respects, and it exaggerated and romanticized the role of the drugs' discoverer, Dr. Judah Folkman, a researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston, in a way that surprised his colleagues and embarrassed Folkman.
But beyond the hype and confusion, something very real is going on. These are exciting times in cancer research, perhaps the most exciting since Richard Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. Angiogenesis inhibition, the tumor-starving process that Folkman pioneered, is indeed a promising line of research. Dozens of labs are racing to perfect it, some of them doing work that is more advanced than Folkman's. But it's not the only field with potential. Just as exciting, say many researchers, is the revolution in cancer treatments made possible by what they've learned about how genes and cancer cells work at the molecular level, the fruits of which are already being delivered to human patients (see following story).
How did a story about preliminary data on laboratory animals spiral so completely out of control? The key is Kolata's piece in the Times and the prominent placement her editors gave it. "Within a year," she began, "if all goes well, the first cancer patient will be injected with two new drugs that can eradicate any type of cancer, with no obvious side effects and no drug resistance--in mice." It was a sentence that couldn't help grabbing readers' attention--despite those critical two words, "in mice"--and holding it throughout the rest of the story.
Apart from certain omissions, there was nothing factually inaccurate in what Kolata wrote. Folkman, in his statements, went out of his way to downplay his findings. But his carefully cautionary tone was completely overshadowed by the quotes Kolata attributed to a host of other scientists and the adjectives they used to describe Folkman's work. His results were "remarkable," "exciting" and "wonderful." Dr. James Pluda of the National Cancer Institute said he and his colleagues were "electrified" and "almost overwhelmed" by the data.
The quote that nailed the story, however, and put it on the front page, was the one attributed to James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA's double helix and one of the most famous scientists in the world. "Judah," he is supposed to have said, "is going to cure cancer in two years."
That was all the endorsement most journalists needed to hear. The Times wields so much influence as the paper of record--and has a reputation for being so conservative in its news judgment--that few reporters could justify holding their own stories while checking out all the details. And even those who did produce more balanced pieces only seemed to reinforce the impression that something really big had happened. Wire services ticked off the highlights. Television anchors and radio announcers provided the sound bites. And the tabloids dutifully served up the tearful stories of cancer patients desperate to try anything.