The correspondence from Anna Olsson and Augusto Vitale provides some perspective that is indeed missing from our October 2009 article. I will not disagree with them, although I would like to point out that this lack of perspective comes not as a result of our own work but from the fact that some material had to be omitted just before the article went to press. I thus feel compelled to explain the story behind the story.
The article started out as a look at how the animal rights movement is affecting policy in the USA and Europe. However, as we proceeded with the story we noted pending legislation on both continents and shifted the focus of the piece to include this. We carefully selected sources on both sides of the Atlantic in an effort to provide informative voices with varying, balanced views. We were especially intrigued by the pending revision of the European Union's Directive 86/609.
I was lucky enough to contact a desk officer at the European Commission (EC) in Brussels who was involved with the revision. She consented to a taped interview over the telephone with the understanding that she would be able to review our use of her answers—the editor at EMBO reports agreed to this.
For the record, journalism as practiced in the USA, where we work, can be different from that practiced in Europe and elsewhere. Different rules might also apply if you're writing for a daily newspaper, a trade publication or a science publication. US newspaper editors do not generally want their reporters to have their work reviewed by the people about whom they are reporting; especially if those people are politicians. Conversely, some, perhaps many science journalists these days do ask their sources to review articles in the interest of avoiding errors.
When a bureaucrat in the USA or Europe asks to review an article before it goes to press, it therefore goes against my instinct and training. But I went along with such a review—with the blessing and caveats from the editor at EMBO reports—to get the interview.
The bureaucrat agreed to speak on record. As per her request, I even sent ahead preliminary questions. The official wrote back that the EC would wish to see and approve our article before publication. That should have been a warning of troubles ahead. Still, we gained a great deal of insight from the interview into the Commission's thinking concerning the Directive, how the laws were likely to change and some of the behind-the-scenes politics. We included all this information in our original article.
After the interview, the official went on vacation and returned just as our deadline approached. We sent her the article for review and she sent it to her communications department, which refused to grant permission to use any of the information we gained from her; they pointed out no inaccuracies. Their response broke our agreement and their refusal came right on the production deadline.
The story had a hole. We debated different ways of how to address the problem, but felt ultimately that we couldn't paraphrase the interview; nor did we feel comfortable attributing quotes to a nameless EC bureaucrat. Time was up. The story was set in type and had to run with the EC declining to comment. As we removed the quotes and information from the interview, the article inevitably shifted in balance to become more critical of the proposed changes to European animal research legislation. Needless to say, it was too late to identify and interview other sources who could have provided the now-missing balance.
Over the years, I have had several successful experiences dealing with the EC. This was not one of those. Olsson and Vitale now make some of the same points that the EC official made concerning the new legislation; in that sense, the system works. In public policy, the media, elected officials, bureaucrats and the various publics all have important roles. But this is a fragile ecosystem that breaks down when officialdom opts out. This can create the impression of bias where none exists, or worse, it can cause the various constituencies, including the public and scientists, to lose out when information does not flow freely in spirited debate. I have the sense that bureaucrats are centred on job security in general and do not want to rock the boat. The authorship of a favourite quote is in dispute. But to paraphrase, there are two things you shouldn't see made: laws and sausage. My version is: laws, sausage and occasionally news coverage of laws in Brussels and Washington in the absence of transparency.