N.Y. Times public editor examines coverage of vaccine-autism link

In today's New York Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt takes a look at questions surrounding reporters' handling of contested topics (at least by some) in science and medicine, including allegations of the link between vaccines and autism.

As we wrote last month, the New York Times broke the story about the content of the premiere episode of ABC drama "Eli Stone", triggering a flurry of protest by the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. In his stories, Times reporter Edward Wyatt wrote that the issue was all but settled within the scientific and medical communities, with the possible link between vaccines and autism largely rejected. (A Times editorial published after the episode aired offered a similar point-of-view.)

In his piece today, Hoyt writes:

"Wyatt’s article made clear that there is a debate but did not give equal weight to the two sides. The Times has not since 2005, when two reporters investigated every scientific study and thousands of documents from parents convinced of a link between autism and vaccines, and came down pretty clearly on the side of the scientists.

Wyatt said he relied on that report and read extensively about autism when he got the first hint of what the “Eli Stone” episode would say. "The show seems to portray it as, ‘No one knows,’" he said. “My conclusion was that that is not the case."

Proponents of a possible link were not pleased with Wyatt's portrayal of the scientific debate last month and are likely to be similarly displeased with the concurrence of the Times' public editor today.