PW: You say in The Cell Game that you were one of the last journalists to talk to Sam Waksal before he stopped speaking to the press. How did that come about?
Alex Prud'homme: I was a staff writer at Talk magazine, and Tina Brown suggested that I do a profile of Waksal, whom she knew socially. Waksal was a rising star who'd just done a $2 billion deal with Bristol Myers Squibb—it looked like his cancer drug, Erbitux, would be approved by the FDA, and he was a man about town, hanging out with Martha Stewart and Carl Icahn, so it was a perfect Talk story. I started reporting without any agenda, just doing a basic profile of the guy. I met him a few times and was always charmed, but when I went through his résumé and started calling the people he'd worked with in the past I began hearing stories about him, and one thing led to another.
PW: What happened then?
AP: I'd developed a rapport with Sam, and we had a meeting in early January 2002, just a few days after the disputed stock trades. In retrospect, it's hard to believe that he had the meeting with me, but he did, I think because he loved the press, he loved the attention, and he'd been able to talk his way through difficult times before. Then the sky fell down around him, but right when we were about to close the story, Talk went out of business. Graydon Carter encouraged me to keep reporting the story, so I did, and it eventually appeared in Vanity Fair.
PW: When did you get interested in the story beyond Waksal, specifically, the cancer patients whose lives might be saved by Erbitux?
AP: That was my initial interest in the story, actually. I cared less about the celebrity than I did about the science and the biotech business, so it was a natural thing as a reporter to talk to the people who would be using the product, especially because there'd been so much hype around it. Cancer patients were eagerly awaiting the drug's approval. The patients it's designed for are Phase IV patients, the ones at death's door, so Erbitux was their last best hope.
PW: How hard was it to build a rapport with interview subjects you knew were, as you say, at death's door?
AP: It's a challenge, and I tried to be sensitive to where they were coming from. We all know people who have suffered from cancer, and I've certainly had cases among my family and friends. But I felt their story needed to be told, and they were all eager to talk, even the ones who were very, very sick, glad to share their story and to educate others.
PW: Do you think the media missed the boat by focusing so much of their attention on Waksal and Martha Stewart's disputed stock trades?
AP: I resisted the Martha angle for a long time. It was interesting that she was a friend of his, and he certainly used that friendship, but I found it peripheral to the central story. But then her celebrity took over the story; it's how most people know about ImClone, and I had to embrace that. But I do feel the media's missed the boat. Right now everybody's talking about her trial, which is about to open. What they're missing is that Erbitux is being reviewed by the FDA and may very well be approved by mid-February.
PW: What led you to publish now, before her fate is decided?
AP: For obvious reasons, HarperBusiness wanted to get the book out quickly. One of the biggest challenges was to get the book done as quickly as I could with integrity. Publishing is always a balance of things; in this case, it was a complicated story versus a time issue. But the Martha trial will certainly bring the story more attention, and I'll be there.
PW: Any plans to write about Talk's short history?
AP: Probably not from me. I know other people have talked about it, but... no.
PW: What are you thinking about next?
AP: I'm pursuing two good stories I'm unfortunately not at liberty to talk about. Neither of them are investigative in the way this book was, but one of them has a crime angle while the other is completely different. That's what I like to do. I call myself a business writer, but I cover a lot of different subjects under that.
