Following heavy criticism, FDA says controversial embargo policy is “not to be used under any circumstance”

Several months after a damning expose demonstrating that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was violating its own official policy by using a controversial embargo practice, the agency has said it will no longer use so-called “close-hold embargoes.”

Such embargo agreements restrict whom reporters can talk to before embargoes lift, unlike standard embargoes in which journalists can share information for comment as long as their sources understand it is under embargo. I’ve called this an attempt to turn reporters into stenographers.

In a letter today to the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), outgoing FDA Acting Assistant Commissioner for Media Affairs Jason Young acknowledges that at times, the agency’s policy “was not adequately followed.” And Young — whose last day at the FDA is today, ahead of the Presidential inauguration — writes (bolding his) that 

Daily Mail breaks embargo on gonorrhea-killing mouthwash study in BMJ journal

Sexually Transmitted Infections, a journal published by the BMJ, has lifted the embargo early on a study of Listerine and gonorrhea after the Daily Mail ran a story 24 hours before the scheduled embargo.

From an email sent to The BMJ’s press list this morning:

Scrap embargoes? Careful what you wish for, says longtime PR pro

Brian Reid

On Tuesday, Vox posted what I called my “embargo manifesto.” I’ve been pleased to see it generate substantial discussion, including disagreement and criticism, on social media. And I’m also pleased to present this guest post from Brian Reid, a former reporter for Bloomberg who’s now a director at PR/communications firm W2O, responding to the piece.

Reading Ivan Oransky’s well-thought out missive against the use of embargoes in scientific and medical communication reminded me of the Winston Churchill chestnut about democracy: It’s the worst form of government, except for all of the others. The embargo system, in which vetted reporters receive additional time to assess and report complex information, in return for agreeing not to publish before a certain time, is also the worst system, except for all of the others.

In Oransky’s view, the current system encourages hype, discourages context and empowers journals and corporations to the detriment of reporters and, particularly, their audiences. Much of that criticism is spot-on.

But what would the world of medical reporting look like if embargoes went away? Certainly different, but probably not better. Here’s what you’d get every Wednesday at 5 p.m. (when the New England Journal of Medicine goes public):

The revolution will not be embargoed: My embargo manifesto, on Vox

I’ve finally done it: My embargo manifesto is live.

Today, Vox — thanks to Eliza Barclay and Julia Belluz — published “Why science news embargoes are bad for the public.” In its 2,000-plus words, I try to distill my thinking on embargoes, the Ingelfinger Rule, and the system that’s evolved around media coverage of science.

The title perhaps gives away the main thrust; here, in the parlance of journalism, is the nut graf:

Reuters breaks Lancet embargo

The Lancet lifted an embargo early on Thursday, following a break.

From an email sent out to The Lancet press list at 7:02 a.m. UK time Thursday morning:

Embargo on overdrinking proves hard to swallow for university press release

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) lifted the embargo early Friday on a paper scheduled for release today, after a university jumped the gun with a press release.

From a note sent to the PNAS media list Friday:

EurekAlert! back online, weeks after hacking incident

A number of science journalists may be breathing a big sigh of relief this afternoon, if they check their inboxes.

Nineteen days after going dark because it was hacked, the embargoed section of the EurekAlert! press release service is back online.

The site was taken offline late on the night of September 13 because of an “aggressive attack on September 9” in which usernames and passwords were compromised. Eventually, two embargoed press releases went out prematurely.

Today,

The FDA has been using embargoes to manipulate journalists. Here’s how.

Charles Seife

Embargo Watch readers may recall a few episodes over the years involving the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA), in which the agency tried to turn reporters into stenographers. In 2011 and 2014, journalists were required to agree not to speak to any outside sources before an embargo lifted, if they wanted access to the information ahead of time.

The 2011 incident made me a little, well, let’s say outraged, and the Association of Health Care Journalists, on whose board I’ve sat since 2002, wrote a letter to the FDA about the policy. The FDA reversed itself, which I cheered. But they went back to their old tricks in 2014, this time ending up on the radar of the New York Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan.

Despite the frustration and publicity, the FDA doesn’t seem to have made any changes. And in the new issue of Scientific American, my New York University Institute of Journalism colleague Charles Seife reveals

Does the EurekAlert! hack show us what a world without embargoes would be like?

Embargo Watch readers are likely aware by now that EurekAlert!, the press release clearinghouse run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is offline after being hacked, as I and others reported yesterday. Given EurekAlert!’s dominance in the world of embargoed releases, the episode has understandably led to some musings by science reporters about life without embargoes:

EurekAlert! taken offline after being hacked

EurekAlert!, the embargoed news source run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), has been temporarily taken offline following a “serious security breach.”

Ginger Pinholster, AAAS chief communications officer and director, office of public programs, said in a statement posted to the site last night at 10:10 p.m. Eastern that usernames and passwords had been compromised, and that embargoed information had been released.

Pinholster tells Embargo Watch that two embargoed releases were released early, and that:

The unknown individual was not selling login information. He seemed motivated to see whether he could breach EurekAlert!.

All of the site’s URLs now direct to a page with this message: