text_1: MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY: HEARTBROKEN FAMILY AWAITS FDA DECISION ON EXPERIMENTAL DRUG
text_2: This story focuses on a family tragedy—three young boys in a single family with a fatal genetic disorder called Duchenne muscular dystrophy—and the family’s hope that an experimental drug, which the three boys have been taking as part of a clinical trial, will receive FDA approval later this month. The story is filled with emotional freight, pitting anecdotal evidence (the mother’s reflection on her sons’ vigor, which she attributes to the drug) against systematic evidence that that finds little in the way of robust benefits. While such a story offers readers a compelling look at the sometimes anguished process of clinical research in the face of a lethal disease, it gives too short shrift to the clinical research evidence available here. On the other hand, the story did a great job explaining the costs and insurance hurdles around drugs like this, as well as the possible mechanisms behind how this drug and similar ones work. Letting the emotional intensity of anecdotal information duke it out with systematic research findings is a proven reader-grabber. But selecting this narrative route requires dedication to a story line that never lets the reader forget that good, systematic evidence is paramount. Given the vividness of anecdotal accounts, the systematic details in a story like this must be a dominant and detailed part of the story. This text would have done a better job of achieving that, and doing so convincingly, with more evidentiary detail.