Reporter messes up facts and misses drug exposures.
A reporter misrepresents new science data and misses the opportunity to highlight human exposures in a Chemical and Engineering News article.
Finding pharmaceutical products or drugs in water coming out of waste water treatment plants AND identifying the source of those pharmaceuticals is certainly a finding worthy of press coverage. In a reasonably well-written article, reporter Janet Pelley (6-23-10 Correction) attempts to summarize the findings and misrepresents some of them instead.
First, she understates the number of drugs the researchers estimate were in the effluent. She states that "New York [pharmaceutical manufacturing] plants that serve drug makers released the seven pain killers." The seven were those that the researchers identified in the study, but the list of compounds is actually much longer. Fourteen additional pharmaceuticals were found and identified by the FDA as being produced by the upstream manufacturing plants. In fact, the paper states that "results indicate that the pharmaceuticals included in this study [only seven were included] may only represent a fraction of the pharmaceuticals potentially present in the effluent at these sites."
Pelley also reports that researchers detected the seven drugs "in a drinking-water reservoir 30 kilometers downstream." The research paper states "two or more" were detected downstream.
Despite these factual inaccuracies, the more egregious error is in failing to discuss the potential exposures of people and wildlife. As an example, metaxalone was found at maximum concentrations of 3,800 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in the waste water effluent. As a point of reference, the measured average human blood level following the typical clinical dose is more than three times LOWER than this level.
While there are no clear data on the health implications to wildlife or humans from drinking water containing these concentrations of mixed pharmaceuticals, the potential magnitude of the exposure should not be left out of the discussion.
Editor's Note 6/23/2010: Lila Guterman, Senior Editor, Chemical and Engineering News, commented on this review. Her response reads in part:
I would like to note that your review makes no mention of the realities of science journalism. For one thing, sources often provide incomplete information, even when pressed, as Janet did on the topic your review describes as an “egregious error” for us to have missed. Also, your review misrepresents Janet’s story as having not mentioned that topic [potential exposures] at all, when in fact the story did, if indirectly. And this was an editorial decision – not an “error” – because we judged this content not to be in line with the focus of the story. Your review, again, fails to mention another reality of science journalism: short news stories require reporters and editors to make judgments about what is worthy of including. In this case, we decided to deemphasize that topic, and I stand by that decision. Finally, your headline is unfairly negative and grossly out of line with the content of the review. ... Janet carefully fact checked her article, so I believe your review’s assertions are overstatements when they say that her facts are wrong. For instance, in your review’s third paragraph, you note that she mentions seven pharmaceuticals, but the paper only mentions two – Janet got information from the paper’s author, so she is able to go beyond what’s in the paper itself.
