'Drug test' tested.

I am disturbed by the article, "Drug Test," by Daniel Schulman (CJR, November/December), which purports to be a balanced look at issues surrounding thimerosal (a mercury-based vaccine preservative) and autism, a development condition first seen in childhood. While tilting away from science and

The article mentions eight reports from nine meetings the independent Institute of Medicine held from 2001 to 2004 as if they were the equivalent of the anguished cries of parents seeking an answer. The final IOM study was conducted by thirteen senior scientists and health officials who collectively hold seventeen advanced degrees and serve at twelve universities and medical centers around the country. It was not a frivolous exercise. Those studies are both acknowledged, then dismissed, usually in favor of beliefs expressed by reporters, or advocates.

The article throws out theories of a conspiracy between scientists, the federal government, and drug companies to suppress or deny the alleged connections, but remarkably never pursues them The article blends in the unrelated hardball lobbying tactics of the pharmaceutical industry as if they were proof of the thimerosal theory (rather than the industry's standard aggressive business practice). The article devotes four lengthy paragraphs to the fringe notion of "chelation therapy," which is best described on a Web site called quackwatch.org.

The article identifies the university affiliations of researchers who anecdotally support some aspect of the thimerosal-did-it view or who think that more research into this specific issue is needed. But it never identifies the university affiliations of those who worked on the three-year IOM study and unanimously concluded that there was no causal link and that funds could best be spent elsewhere.

Go to the last paragraph of the story to see the tilt away from an understanding of the scientific method and toward a romantic view of journalism, with reporters as the lonely Davids ready to take down the behemoth Goliaths: "Whether the thimerosal theory is proved right or wrong, there will be consequences--for the public health apparatus and vaccine manufacturers, for parents and their children, even for journalists." Excuse me, but the thimerosal theory has been proven to be wrong. We are talking about scientific inquiry here, not gumshoe political reporting. A real opportunity was lost here, and a remarkably vaporous smokescreen has been thrown up in the name of "balance."

Bob Meyers

President, National Press Foundation

Washington, D.C.

Daniel Schulman responds: The major assumption in Meyers's letter is that "the thimerosal theory has been proven wrong." That is simply untrue. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Centers for Disease Control. The agency is currently conducting a study on precisely whether there is any connection between mercury-containing vaccines and autism, a line of inquiry it would hardly waste time or money on if the thimerosal theory had been authoritatively debunked.

Contrary to what Meyers suggests, nowhere in the story do I assert a definitive link between thimerosal and autism, or anything even approaching that What I do state is that "there is science left to be done and scientists eager to do it, " which seems to be in accord with the CDC'S official position.

Although I never intimate, as Meyers suggests, that the IOM is anything less than a highly respected institution that undertook a serious review, I do cover some legitimate concerns that have surfaced about the methodology of some of the primary studies the IOM relied on. In addition, my failure to list the university affiliations of the IOM's panel was in no way an attempt to undercut the credibility of its work; I repeatedly make it clear that the "bulk" of the scientific establishment believes no association exists between thimerosal and autism. Since reputable researchers on the other side Of this debate have often been portrayed by their peers and others as charlatans, I thought it important that readers be aware of just who these "charlatans" are.

Meyers also claims that I push conspiracy theories, though I clearly state my views on the "evidence" of conspiracy that advocates of the thimerosal theory have amassed. Referring to the minutes of a hush-hush meeting of public health officials, researchers, and reps from leading vaccine manufacturers, and other similar documents that advocates point to as proof of an autism connection or a cover-up of same, I write: "Simpsonwood is not a smoking gun. Nor are other documents that purport to be." I also note that there is no proof that the IOM manipulated data to whitewash a link between thimerosal and autism, as some allege.

Far from writing about chelation as an advocate, I note it solely in the context of a five-year-old boy who died as a result Of this therapy. My aim was to point out that the consequences of lending any measure of credibility to the thimerosal theory are not purely theoretical and that journalists who choose to write about this subject must grapple with that reality.

Ultimately, perhaps Meyers and I disagree on what the "scientific method" really is. In my view, debate and controversy are integral to the process. But we are in agreement that when it comes to the thimerosal question, "a vaporous smokescreen" has indeed obscured the issue.