NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
Updated Daily!
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|
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. 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."
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. 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." 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? 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.
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. No wonder allegations of misconduct by U.S. scientists are at an all time high. 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.
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." 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).
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
By Tim Montague
"Sixth grade was a trying time for Karen Singer's autistic son, who spent recess wandering the periphery of the playground by himself and sometimes hid in the school bathroom when he needed a safe place to cry. He knew he was doing something wrong as he reached the social crucible of middle school, but he did not know how to fix it. At home he begged his mother to explain: "Why am I like this? What's wrong with me?" ...Parents, educators, researchers and clinicians all say that the majority of such children become conspicuous in the third grade and are bullied or ostracized by the time they reach middle school."
Developmental disabilities such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and uncontrollable aggression currently affect an estimated 12 million U.S. children under age 18 -- almost one child in five. A group of public health scientists led by Dr. Susan Koger estimates that between 3 and 25% of all developmental disabilities result from exposure to neurotoxic chemicals in the environment. These disabilities ultimately impact all aspects of human development -- our ability to learn, socialize and become productive members of society.
Reading and writing difficulties affect nearly 4 million school-age children. Disabilities in children pose lifelong difficulties for the affected individuals. It is harder for them to keep jobs, learn new skills, work and generally get along with others. Many developmental disabilities (like aggression and impulsivity) are precursors to violent and criminal behavior. In 2004, the U.S. prison/jail population increased at the rate of 933 each week and 75% of these new inmates were black or Hispanic -- populations disproportionately impacted by heavy metals and other toxicants.
Costs to Society
Even if the developmental effects of environmental toxicants are subtle (which is not always the case), the economic and social impacts can be profound. Consider reduced intelligence: If the cumulative effects of environmental toxicants reduced the average American's IQ by just one percent (about one IQ point) the annual cost to society would come to $50 billion and the lifetime costs to trillions". The impacts are felt at both ends of the intelligence spectrum -- there is a greater burden on the social system, reduced productivity en masse, and there are fewer shining stars to discover new and better ways of living sustainably.
Mercury emissions from power plants alone impact approximately 500,000 children each year in the U.S. Their resulting lowered IQ translates into an annual economic loss of $1.3 billion (in 2000 dollars; this estimate is $8.7 billion if you consider all sources of environmental mercury). And these statistics say nothing of the other costs to society including medical/therapeutic treatment, special education, incarceration, addiction counseling, etc.
Meanwhile, industry and government argue that its not economically viable to take a precautionary approach. As a result, Americans spend between $81 and 167 billion dollars each year on neurodevelopmental deficits, hypothyroidism and related disorders.
The Bush administration actively puts down European initiatives like REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) that would force industry to evaluate the safety of chemicals prior to their marketing to the general public. This kind of precautionary stance might cost the U.S. $30 billion in lost sales of chemicals and products. One study concluded that today's generation of newborns has a $110 to $318 billion GREATER earning capacity as a result of NOT being exposed to the levels of lead faced by infants a generation ago.
Toxicants' Effect on the Developing Child
Growing children are particularly at risk to chemicals in their environment because they face greater exposure and are physiologically more susceptible. They ingest more food/water per pound of body weight than adults. Children spend more time near the ground and thus breathe up to ten times more dust and residues than adults. Children also put contaminated items in their mouths. When the National Academy of Sciences studied pesticides and children's health in 1993, the Academy concluded, "A fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children are not 'little adults'.... In the absence of data to the contrary, there should be a presumption of greater toxicity to infants and children."
Dr. Koger reviews some the literature on lead, mercury and pesticides: We now know that environmental exposure to lead causes learning disabilities, reduced IQ, attention deficit, impulsivity, hyperactivity and violent behavior. Initially scientists believed that there was a threshold for lead toxicity but recent studies have confirmed that there is no safe level of lead exposure. If you ingest lead your IQ will be reduced. In the mid-1970s, 40% of American children under age 5 had average (mean) lead levels of 20 ug/dl or more. 10 ug/dl blood lead is the current safety threshold established by EPA. Among African-American children in the mid-1970s, more than half had blood-lead levels greater than 15 ug/dl.
Methylmercury (an organic form of mercury that accumulates in fish and the animals that eat fish) acts directly on the central nervous system by damaging or destroying nerve cells. It impairs brain development and can lead to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, lowered IQ, loss of memory, reduced attention span and physical coordination. The FDA and EPA currently recommend that nursing mothers and young children avoid fish known to have high mercury levels (including albacore tuna, shark, swordfish, and king mackerel). The major sources of environmental mercury are coal burning power plants, waste incinerators and volcanoes. Human sources account for 70% of the 5,500 metric tons (12.1 million pounds) of mercury released into the environment each year. The EPA estimates that 1.16 million women of childbearing age "eat sufficient amounts of mercury-contaminated fish to pose a risk of harm to their future children."
Pesticides are toxic by design and meant to kill weeds, insects, rodents and other pest organisms; they do so by impairing the nervous and immune system function. Many pesticides and their byproducts (which include PCBs) are highly toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative in humans. Because our nervous system shares basic physiology with other living things, pesticides also harm the human nervous and immune systems [see Rachel's #660]. Of the 140 pesticides officially known to be neurotoxicants, only 12 (8.5%) have been tested for potential impacts on children's development. A study of Mexican children exposed to pesticides found impaired memory, creativity and motor skills compared to an unexposed population. The pesticide exposed children had trouble drawing an ordinary stick figure of a human, something the unexposed children could readily do.
Limits of Science
Koger identifies six reasons why it is inherently difficult to document a cause-effect relationship between toxicants and impaired health:
1. Lack of a control group -- because environmental toxicants are so widespread, it is difficult (though not impossible) to find unexposed groups for comparison with exposed individuals;
2. Multiple chemical exposure -- the interaction between chemicals may cause different effects than a chemical acting alone;
3. Behavioral and cognitive effects are typically subtle and difficult to measure;
4. The majority of research on toxicants is done on lab animals which limits their application to human health;
5. The effects of exposure may not be seen for months or years;
6. The brain and other systems of the human body are more susceptible to chemicals during specific development phases -- exposure at one time may have no effect while the same exposure at a different developmental stage could have significant effects; and
7. Genetic variation and gene-environment interactions greatly complicate the matter.
Conclusions and Regulatory Issues
Humans have long recognized the potential harm of environmental chemicals to child development. Unfortunately, regulatory efforts focus on proving harm before limiting the exposure of countless innocents, with the associated cascade of health, social and economic losses. When the U.S. finally banned lead in paint and gasoline, blood levels of lead improved dramatically. But left to its own devices, industry will do what is best for industry -- pursue profits for shareholders at any cost. The alternative is to take a proactive approach like that being pursued by Sweden which calls for new products to be largely free from (a) persistent and bioaccumulative substances; (b) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and endocrine (hormone system) disruptors; (c) heavy metals like lead, cadmium and mercury. The U.S. is currently standing on the sidelines of this significant ethical and technological advancement for society.
Dr. Koger calls on her colleagues in the scientific/mental health professions to take a stand against the historical risk-assessment- reliant prove-harm approach that costs society so much human suffering and misery. The grand human experiment currently being conducted by industry is inconsistent with the ethical standards applied to pharmaceutical testing where erring on the side of precaution is customary.
Koger urges psychologists -- as the most qualified front-line professionals dealing with the problems of developmental disabilities -- to play a more active role in exploring alternatives like integrated pest management, speaking out in their local community, and applying their technical expertise to the widespread and growing problem of environmental toxicants. As scientist-citizens psychologists can reduce the toxic burden shared by all. A healthy and sustainable future for our children depends on it.
NEXT PAGE -->
|
|
|---|
| * * * IN-HOUSE RESOURCES * * * |
|---|