“The role of the journalist is not to be an advocate,” said New York Times science and medical reporter Gina Kolata at a panel discussion held at the University yesterday.
Kolata, joined by Susan Wood, former director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Women’s Health, and other prominent individuals discussed the role of the press and public policy with regard to women’s health issues at the Michigan League at an event sponsored by the Knight-Wallace Fellows, a fellowship program for mid-career journalists.
“The idea is to explore how well the important public policy issue of women’s health is being explained to the public, which of course ultimately foots the bill,” said Charles Eisendrath, the director of the fellowship program.
The role of the journalist, according to Kolata, is similar to that of an entertainer, that journalists are telling stories.
“Its not our job to make you do something,” she said.
Kolata said it is not the responsibility of the journalist to provide advice or change people’s minds. However, her concern is that journalists are not asking the right questions when it comes to covering health and medical issues.
Kolata said that much medical advice is not necessarily backed up by science.
Similarly, she said journalists have the tendency to only write about the positive aspects of medical and science news.
Another significant concern brought up by the panelists was the way in which political agendas often overshadow the role of science when creating public policy.
Wood resigned from her post as director of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health because of the controversy within the FDA concerning the marketing of Plan B, or the “emergency contraceptive pill.”
Plan B would prevent ovulation, and therefore pregnancy, 72 hours after unprotected sex.
However, Wood said many individuals are confusing Plan B with abortion, which has created problems with its availability.
Wood said the FDA was struggling with what it should do in regards to Plan B, and how it should be regulated.
She said a plan was finalized in May 2004 that the drug would be marketed over the counter for those above the age of 16, while for those under 16, a prescription would be required.
According to Wood, FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford placed a hold on the process last August because he was unsure how such a dual regulation would occur.
“We have had other dual status products, but they were never regulated,” she said. “To announce (the hold) was a way to say no without saying no.”
Wood feels that a political agenda played a role in the halting of the process because all the scientific data indicated that Plan B was a safe contraceptive.
“(This is) a disregard of the science. There was a complete consensus in the FDA, almost unanimous agreement (on Plan B), ” she said.
Wood resigned due to the lack of input she was allowed in the entire process and felt that her work was being compromised.
“My job is to be a champion for women’s health,” Wood said. “It was clear that we were being cut out.”
Other incidents where political agendas were impacting health policies and the availability of accurate medical information were discussed among the panelists.
Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, said that the National Cancer Institute experienced a similar brush with political influence.
Visco said the U.S government believes there is a link between abortions and breast cancer.
The NCI website, however, explicitly states that such a link does not exist.
According to Visco, the government had the information removed by the NCI, piquing discussion that political agendas are at play.
“(This) gives me no confidence. Who can you trust?” she said.
Wood believes that these situations are indicative of the agenda of the government and that the role of health agencies is being compromised.
“I worry about what will happen to the women’s health department. I worry it will not be able to continue doing the work it is doing,” Wood said.