SCIENCE UNDER SEIGE

RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #822
http://www.rachel.org
July 21, 2005

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SCIENCE UNDER SEIGE

By Tim Montague

An ill wind is gusting through the halls of science these days: faked
research, suppression of unwelcome results, corruption of science
advisory panels, university research falling under the influence of
corporate sponsors, and many other conflicts of interest.

It’s as if science were under siege.

For at least the last thirty years science has strongly supported the
positions taken by environmental and public health advocates. The
proponents of ‘business as usual’ have claimed that chemical and
nuclear technologies have created only minor problems or no problems
whatsoever — but time after time science has shown otherwise. They
said global warming was a “chicken little” fantasy. They said the
Earth’s ozone shield couldn’t possible be harmed. They argued that
asbestos was benign. They said lead in paint and gasoline was entirely
safe. They said harm from hormone-disrupting chemicals was imaginary.
They said a little radioactivity might actually improve your health.
They said human health was constantly and consistently improving —
until scientific study revealed increases in birth defects, asthma,
diabetes, attention deficits, nervous system disorders, diseases of
the reproductive system, immune system disorders, cancer in children,
and on and on. In each of these cases science showed that the
advocates of ‘business as usual’ were simply wrong.

Science cannot solve all our problems or tell us everything we need to
know, but it remains a powerful tool for reaching agreement about the
nature of reality (at least for those parts of reality amenable to
scientific inquiry). For the past 30 years, science has shown us
unmistakably that we are destroying the natural systems (and bodily
defenses) that we ourselves depend upon, so ‘business as usual’ is a
dead end.

Perhaps this is why science itself is now under systematic attack by
corporate interests. Whatever the underlying reasons, it seems clear
that industry has lined up to discredit science, control the research
agenda, take over the apparatus for scholarly publication and
otherwise undermine the scientific and democratic pursuit of knowledge
in the public interest. Perhaps they see it as their only hope of
defending themselves against the overwhelming scientific evidence that
— if accepted by the public — would end ‘business as usual’ and set
us on a new precautionary path.

The Los Angeles Times reported July 11 that allegations of faked
scientific findings increased 50% between 2003 and 2004.[1] But the
Times also noted that the federal Office of Research Integrity cannot
keep up with the rising tide of scientific fakery because it’s budget
is far too small. The office received 274 allegations of scientific
fakery in 2004, but was able to complete only 23 investigations.

Corporate suppression of data is now so routine that no one raises an
eyebrow. In the wake of an EPA advisory panel classifying the Teflon
chemical C8 (ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA) as a “likely
carcinogen,” reporter Ken Ward Jr. of the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette
learned that in 1981 DuPont initiated a study to learn whether
exposure to C8 caused birth defects in the children of Teflon factory
workers. When the study found an excess of birth defects in the
children, the study was abandoned and the results filed away without
notifying the federal government. Under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) companies must tell the EPA when they find information
“that reasonably supports the conclusion that [a chemical] presents a
substantial risk of injury to health.”[2]

Generating Doubt — OSHA Gives Up

It is common practice for industry to wage scientific and public
relations war against the regulatory agencies whose job is to protect
public health. The Wall Street Journal reports that PR firm executives
openly admit to hiring university professors to put their names on
ghost-written letters to the editor.[3] The letters are written by
hacks paid to put a corporate “spin” on the science, and the experts
sign their names to lend credence to the spin (and to earn a fat fee).

Another common practice these days is “seeding the scientific
literature” with bogus results, to create doubt and confusion. In
recent years, corporations have seeded the literature with false
findings related to tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos, vinyl chloride,
chromium, nickel, benzene, beryllium and others. They cook the
numbers, publish misleading articles in obscure journals, and then
cite their own work to create confusion and doubt.

This strategy has brought the federal government to its knees. The
case of beryllium is illuminating. Beryllium is a strong, light metal
used in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Beryllium dust is a
potent lung toxicant and carcinogen.

In 1999 the Department of Energy (DOE) set beryllium exposure levels
for federal workers that are ten times as strict as the general
industrial exposure standard set by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). The OSHA standard was set based on data
available in 1949.

When OSHA proposed to tighten its safety standard for beryllium
exposure, to bring it into line with the new standard set for federal
workers, industry was able to create enough doubt and confusion that
OSHA backed off and concluded that “more research was needed” before a
tighter standard could be justified.

A writer in Scientific American concludes that “OSHA administrators
have simply recognized that establishing new standards is so time and
labor-intensive, and will inevitably call forth such orchestrated
opposition from industry, that it is not worth expending the agency’s
limited resources on the effort.”[4] Creating confusion and doubt pays
off.

Science in the Private Interest

Chester Douglass — chairman of the Department of Oral Health Policy
and Epidemiology at Harvard — is being investigated for concluding
that there is no relationship between fluoride in drinking water and
bone cancer in children. He himself cites research — described as the
most rigorous to date — concluding the opposite. The National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which funded the
research with a $1.3 million dollar grant, and Harvard are
investigating. Why would a public health expert skew his results? Does
it matter that Dr. Douglass is the editor of The Colgate Oral Health
Report, a quarterly newsletter published by Colgate-Palmolive, which
makes fluoridated toothpaste?[5] Professor Sheldon Krimsky, author of
Science in the Private Interest, warns that science in the public
interest will increasingly lose out as the entire system favors a
tight collaboration between industry, government and academia.[6]

Academic scientists are under increasing pressure to find commercial
applications for their research so that their institution can patent,
license and profit from the work. Corporate partnerships and lucrative
consulting deals inject big money into the equation. In 1996, Sheldon
Krimsky analyzed the biomedical literature and found in 34% of the
articles, at least one of the chief authors had a financial interest
in the research. None of these financial interests was disclosed in
the journals. Krimsky said the 34% figure was probably an
underestimate because he couldn’t check stock ownership or corporate
consulting fees paid to researchers.[7] No wonder allegations of
misconduct by U.S. scientists are at an all time high. [1] A recent
survey of several thousand scientists found that 33% had committed at
least one of ten serious misbehaviors — like falsifying data or
changing conclusions in response to pressure from a funding source.
Six percent admitted to failing to present data that contradicted
their own previous research.[8]

FDA, NIH Broken

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) are now so thoroughly beholden to industry that
they are broken, unable to perform their duties to protect the public.
The New York Times reports “the White House and Congress forced a
marriage between the agency [FDA] and industry years ago for the rich
dowry that industry offered.” Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner
of operations at the FDA said that the drug approval process is
“pretty much broken down… and has been for some time.”[9] The FDA
has become so focused on approving new drugs at the expense of
monitoring the ones already on the market that thousands of people
have been put in harm’s way by drugs like Vioxx. One FDA analyst
estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks
— killing somewhere between 26,400 and 55,600 people (assuming 30 to
40 percent of heart attacks were fatal).[4, 10]

An investigation into drug company ties with NIH scientists found that
more than half of those investigated had violated existing policies
meant to limit conflict of interest. Director of the NIH Elias
Zerhouni said, “We discovered cases of employees who consulted with
research entities without seeking required approval, consulted in
areas that appeared to conflict with their official duties, or
consulted in situations where the main benefit was the ability of the
employer to invoke the name of NIH as an affiliation.” To his credit,
Zerhouni ushered in reforms banning NIH employees from accepting drug
company consulting fees or stock. But congress is now pressuring him
to relent because NIH employees have objected to the restrictions.[11]

To their credit, many courageous government scientists are now
speaking out about the corruption of science and there have been a
number of high profile firings and resignations ranging from the Fish
and Wildlife Service to NASA where scientists are blowing the whistle
on government abuses of solid science.[12]

Some 6,000 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal
of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of
Sciences have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS)
statement, “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.” The Bush
government is certainly not the first to abuse science, but they have
raised the stakes and injected ideology like no previous
administration. The result is scientific advisory panels stacked with
industry hacks, agencies ignoring credible panel recommendations and
concerted efforts to undermine basic environmental and conservation
biology science.[12]

In the words of the UCS, “The actions by the Bush administration
threaten to undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of
scientists working for and advising America’s world-class governmental
research institutions and agencies… To do so carries serious
implications for the health, safety, and environment of all
Americans.”[12]

We have merely scratched the surface here. The corruption of the
scientific enterprise has proceeded very far. In some areas of
scientific endeavor, there are almost no independent researchers left
because nearly every scientist in the field is funded by corporations
with an axe to grind.

Agricultural biotechnology (genetically engineered food) is one such
field of inquiry. The flip side of that coin is that certain avenues
of research have been nearly eliminated by the funding sources — for
example, researchers say funds to study the health effects of biotech
foods are now almost non- existent. [13]

What does this all mean for science and society? The public’s trust
in science will most certainly continue to erode. When this happens,
even honest science is tarnished and loses its power to protect nature
and public health because the public doesn’t believe it. Honest
science in the public interest is becoming an endangered species. And
America slides further from democracy by and for the people.

==========

[1] Martha Mendoza, “Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High,” THE
LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 11, 2005.

[2] Ken Ward Jr., “DuPont Proposed, Dropped ‘81 Study of C8, Birth
Defects,” THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE, July 10, 2005.

[3] Michael Schroeder, “Some Professors Take Payments To Express
Views,” THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 10, 2004, pg. B1.

[4] David Michaels, “Doubt Is Their Product, Industry groups are
fighting government regulation by fomenting scientific uncertainty,”
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (June 2005) Vol. 29 No. 6, pg. 96, 6p.

[5] Juliet Eilperin, “Fluoride-Cancer Link May Have Been Hidden,” THE
WASHINGTON POST, July 14, 2005.

[6] Sheldon Krimsky, SCIENCE IN THE PRIVATE INTEREST; HAS THE LURE OF
PROFITS CORRUPTED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH? (New York, Rowman & Littlefield
2003). ISBN 074251479X.

[7] Sheldon Krimsky and L.S. Rothenberg, “Conflict of Interest
Policies in Science and Medical Journals: Editorial Practices and
Author Disclosures,” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS (2001) Vol. 7,
pgs. 205-218.

[8] Meredith Wadman, “One in Three Scientists Confesses to Having
Sinned,” NATURE (June 9, 2005) Vol. 435, pgs.718-719.

[9] Gardiner Harris, “Drug Safety System Is Broken, a Top F.D.A.
Official Says,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 9, 2005.

[10] The World Health Organization estimates that 39% of all heart
attacks globally are fatal. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR
RISK: report of a WHO meeting, (World Health Organization, Geneva,
9-12 July 2002).

[11] David Willman, “NIH Inquiry Shows Widespread Ethical Lapses,
Lawmaker Says,” THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 14, 2005.

[12] SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN POLICYMAKING; INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION’S MISUSE OF SCIENCE (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of
Concerned Scientists, February 2004). And SEE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN
POLICYMAKING; FURTHER INVESTIGATION (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of
Concerned Scientists, July 2004), both available at:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm

[13] “Monsanto research causes concern about biotech corn,” Canadian
Press June 23, 2005.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Fax (732) 791-4603;
E-mail: [email protected]