Since January 2000, Tara Parker-Pope has written a health column for the Wall Street Journal. In the past, she has covered consumer products for the Journal and done political and government reporting for the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American-Statesman.
Felix Gillette: You recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal about the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) — an immense fifteen-year study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, which focused on how three separate variables — low-fat diets, consumption of calcium and vitamin D, and hormone replacement therapy — affected the long-term health of women. In your article, you wrote that “a flawed communications effort led to widespread misinterpretation of results by the news media and the public.” How did the media mess up the reporting on this study?
Tara Parker-Pope: In writing and reporting the story, it seemed clear to me that the problem started with how the information was disseminated. The people at the NIH are scientists, and they have this deep understanding and detailed knowledge of how science works. Most reporters don’t have that kind of experience. To a great extent, we rely upon the experts.
Certainly the media has some of the responsibility for confusing this message. But I think the problem started with a question of emphasis. I think there was a concern at the NIH to go with the overall finding, the top-line results of this research. But what they didn’t factor in was that those top-line findings were clouded by some serious design challenges within the study. As a result there was really no simple way to explain the top-line findings.
Had there been more explanation of why the overall result was difficult to interpret and why some of these subgroup analyses [within the study] were, in fact, important and meaningful, I think that the media would have done a better job with this. But if you read the transcripts and the press releases, there was an unflinching commitment to the overall findings. I do think that there was a responsibility to communicate this better on the part of NIH.
I also think that as reporters, we should never take anything at face value. I think a mistake that a lot of people might make is to read the press release. [Emphasis added.] I almost never read the press release. I read the study first, because I don’t want to be swayed by what the press release says. That’s what you have to do with any kind of scientific research — ask what is really being asked here, and how much is really being answered?
FG: Can you really expect NIH, after spending $725 million on the study, to point out what’s wrong with it?
TPP: I do think we should expect them to give us the best information. What I like about health reporting is that data is data. It’s not as subjective as some of these other things. But you still have to look at all the factors. You have to look at the compliance rates of the study. You have to look at the women who are recruited. It’s really nuanced. You have to ask yourself and ten other people, what are we really seeing here?
FG: In your story, you quote a professor from the Stanford University School of Medicine, who says, “Unfortunately, science never works in sound bites.” Do you agree?
TPP: I think it is true. But I also think just because we have 15 seconds or 800 words or whatever the amount of time we have to tell our story, we still have to get it right. It’s challenging but it’s also what’s kind of fun about being a health writer — taking this really technical, complicated stuff and distilling it down into something that people can understand and use to make decisions about their health. That’s what I like about the job.
FG: How is writing about health issues different from other beats you’ve covered in the past — for example, consumer products, or politics?