- Email: [email protected]
Doubt is their product
Preventive Medicine 48 (2009) 203–204
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Medicine j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / y p m e d
Book Review Doubt is their product Environmental Health, University of Pittsburgh, School of Public Health, United States Science is not the accumulation of facts that support an argument. A real scientific argument is one that seeks to uncover some truth about the universe, a truth that holds up under scrutiny from all directions, that can explain all the known facts, and that is objective and universal. In some fields of scientific endeavor, such as basic molecular biology or nuclear physics, scientists pursue their quest for truth fairly unfettered by distracting and external influences. The same cannot be said for the field of environmental health sciences. Environmental health science exists not only in the ivory tower of academia, but it is also very much a part of the real world of business, economics, politics and government regulation. A paper that reports a toxicological effect in humans of benzene or carbon tetrachloride at a dose lower than the current TLV, may have a major impact on the economics of several industries, on governmental regulatory agencies, and on the lives and well being of workers and the public. Dr. Norton Nelson, the founder of the Institute of Environmental Medicine at NYU, was fully aware of the dangers of political and economic influences on those trying to come up with good and reliable science in the area, and he warned his faculty, students and fellows, that we should be aware of and resist these influences at all times. “Doubt Is Their Product” is a book about one aspect of this issue, the attempts by industry to use paid scientists to attack and counter efforts by objective academic scientists and regulators to identify health and environmental problems caused by industrial activity. The author documents specific activities, and names the names of both individual scientists and consulting firms who sell their services to companies. These services are characterized by the words of the title. Dr. Michaels shows how consultants for the tobacco, beryllium, and many other industries use a number of techniques, including reanalysis of published data, the use of peer reviewed articles in corrupted journals, and public comments, to sow doubt in areas where objective science has led to a consensus of danger related to a particular product, or process. Dr. Michaels knows about many of these instances of private companies, trade associations, and industry think tanks paying scientists to come up with results that contradict the findings of objective scientific research, from his own personal experience (as Asst. Secretary of the Dept. of Energy in the Clinton administration). The book gains from his relating these experiences in simple, easy to read, and often exciting language. The early chapters of the book recount some of the history of the battles fought to protect workers and the public against a recalcitrant industry. The role of OSHA in the vinyl chloride story and the victory over the lead in gasoline story are nicely presented, and provide a useful, informative historical backdrop to the current situation. Dr. 0091-7435/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.12.003
Michaels also provides an insightful look at the master industry of doubt and deceit — the tobacco industry. A theme throughout the book is that the tobacco industry model, of sowing doubt and confusion, of pretending that there are scientific controversies, where in fact there is none, was followed by many other industries in subsequent years. Much of the first part of the book is organized according to specific toxic agents, such as second hand smoke, chromium, diacetyl (artificial flavoring), beryllium, a number of drugs such as Vioxx. In each case, Dr. Michaels chronicles how industry, with the help of paid scientific consultants, and sometimes a compliant government agency, fought to prevent the regulation or even public knowledge of their toxic products. The author provides several chapters on the legal and legislative events and issues surrounding the control of toxic products and the way scientific data is presented and managed in the legal system. An excellent chapter discusses the truly abysmal record of the Bush administration in the protection of workers and the public from toxic exposures. Finally, Dr. Michaels includes two chapters that provide possible solutions to the problems he sees with the use of unfair and illegitimate scientific expertise to fool the people and the regulatory agencies into allowing the dissemination of harmful products into our working and living environments. This book is clearly and passionately written, and will find an audience of concerned citizens who often find themselves wondering why some scientists are warning of dangers that others are apparently dismissing. The contribution of this book is to point out that many of these viewpoints are not in fact objective, but bought and paid for. This can often provide a tool to decide which side of a debate is being less honest about the real risks of industrial productivity. But the book also suffers from a certain bias and perhaps naiveté. Of course industry pays scientific consultants to present their side of the debate, and of course these consultants tend to find the data that support the arguments of their clients. In this way, these consultants are acting not as objective scientists, but as advocates, much like an attorney, whose job is to defend a point of view, even if it is not true. Is it an evil thing for scientific consultants to act this way? If it is, then we need to indict all lawyers, politicians, journalists, and many others, whose mission is generally to advocate for a point of view, rather than to present an objective, non biased view of reality. The key point, one that is glossed over without sufficient attention in the book, is that such advocacy is wrong if, and only if, it is mislabeled as objective unbiased truth. Throughout academia, the concept of conflict of interest requires scientists to report all connections they may have with private industry or other interested parties, that might have a stake in the outcome of the work they do. Scientists must do this in order to maintain their positions, to publish papers, to get grant funding. And
204
Book Review
the reason this is true, is because it is assumed by everyone that once a scientist is paid by an industry, (or indeed even by a public advocacy group, or other NGO) all results that are related to the industry must be suspect. The real sin, is when such disclosure of conflict of interest is not made. If a scientist covers up the fact that he/she has been paid or hired by some firm or agency, he/she is then guilty of a type of scientific fraud. There is not enough discussion of this point in the book. Dr. Michaels does call for full disclosure, but this is not a new idea, and is generally accepted in the field. The problem is that for the great majority of the examples cited in the book there is no hidden conflict of interest. The best chapter of the book is that which analyzes the terrible record of the GW Bush administration related to regulations and protection of the health and environment. One of the take away messages from this chapter and other comments throughout the book, is that often the scientific arguments become less relevant than the political goals of the administration. One of the glaring omissions of the book is the total lack of discussion of the same sort of abuses of the objective scientific process from the other side of the political fence, which were much more frequent in past decades. While Dr. Michaels does discuss the “junk science” concept that has been used to discredit research aimed at providing more stringent regulations, he does not delve at all into the origins of the term. In fact, there had been a lot of junk science produced at the behest of certain NGOs and advocacy groups in the past. These ranged from gross distortions of breast cancer incidence and risk, false claims that the US was facing a cancer epidemic, and that air and water pollution were leading causes of human cancer. There have been plenty of overblown scare stories that helped to generate counter claims of junk science, which were not always false. Scientists must always be ready to admit that they were wrong, that new data might contradict previous beliefs, and that sometimes, in fact quite often, the truth about the universe is surprising and unexpected. This view is not shared by Dr. Michaels, as manifested in the title of the book. For him, there is no doubt, and anyone who raises the issue of doubt must be a paid shill. How unfortunate, since, as he actually admits in many places, uncertainty
is part of science, and that means that doubt is not the enemy but the stimulator of the search for truth. Good science should be separated from the political and philosophical views of its practitioners, an ideal that is hard to uphold, but that is worth striving for. There should be no conflict of interest for scientists, whether such conflicts come from payments from industry or their own political convictions. The list of ways to fix what Dr. Michaels sees as the problem of the “doubt industry” is surprisingly weak. He seems to want to rely much more on the courts and legal remedies, mostly through civil action in tort cases. There is not sufficient space here to allow for any discussion of this matter. However, it can certainly be said that many objective, well meaning and environmentally friendly scientists will agree that the best way to deal with corporate pollution and other sins, is not through the tort system, as effective as it might have been in cases like the tobacco settlement. The great problem is that of backlash, and the fact (as Dr. Michaels acknowledges) that neither judges nor juries are truly able to grasp the reality of scientific uncertainty, and what it means for regulation and control of public health risks. In fact the chapter on Daubert, and the legal issues surrounding the use of expert testimony is the weakest in the book. It is not clear exactly what Dr. Michaels would propose in order to improve the current situation. Clearly, scientists who are paid by lobbyists and trade organizations might be selling their souls and their opinions for money. But it is not always true that expressions of doubt regarding pronouncements of toxicity are nefarious lies. It is a mistake to judge peoples' opinions and views only by who we think might be paying for them, and to look for conspiracies behind every statement that does not fit our version of the truth. If we have learned anything over the past decades, we should have learned that statements based on political views do not always stand up to more rigorous tests of truth. The whole idea of science is to remedy that. Conflict of interest None.
Seymour Garte E-mail address: [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Medicine j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / y p m e d
Book Review Doubt is their product Environmental Health, University of Pittsburgh, School of Public Health, United States Science is not the accumulation of facts that support an argument. A real scientific argument is one that seeks to uncover some truth about the universe, a truth that holds up under scrutiny from all directions, that can explain all the known facts, and that is objective and universal. In some fields of scientific endeavor, such as basic molecular biology or nuclear physics, scientists pursue their quest for truth fairly unfettered by distracting and external influences. The same cannot be said for the field of environmental health sciences. Environmental health science exists not only in the ivory tower of academia, but it is also very much a part of the real world of business, economics, politics and government regulation. A paper that reports a toxicological effect in humans of benzene or carbon tetrachloride at a dose lower than the current TLV, may have a major impact on the economics of several industries, on governmental regulatory agencies, and on the lives and well being of workers and the public. Dr. Norton Nelson, the founder of the Institute of Environmental Medicine at NYU, was fully aware of the dangers of political and economic influences on those trying to come up with good and reliable science in the area, and he warned his faculty, students and fellows, that we should be aware of and resist these influences at all times. “Doubt Is Their Product” is a book about one aspect of this issue, the attempts by industry to use paid scientists to attack and counter efforts by objective academic scientists and regulators to identify health and environmental problems caused by industrial activity. The author documents specific activities, and names the names of both individual scientists and consulting firms who sell their services to companies. These services are characterized by the words of the title. Dr. Michaels shows how consultants for the tobacco, beryllium, and many other industries use a number of techniques, including reanalysis of published data, the use of peer reviewed articles in corrupted journals, and public comments, to sow doubt in areas where objective science has led to a consensus of danger related to a particular product, or process. Dr. Michaels knows about many of these instances of private companies, trade associations, and industry think tanks paying scientists to come up with results that contradict the findings of objective scientific research, from his own personal experience (as Asst. Secretary of the Dept. of Energy in the Clinton administration). The book gains from his relating these experiences in simple, easy to read, and often exciting language. The early chapters of the book recount some of the history of the battles fought to protect workers and the public against a recalcitrant industry. The role of OSHA in the vinyl chloride story and the victory over the lead in gasoline story are nicely presented, and provide a useful, informative historical backdrop to the current situation. Dr. 0091-7435/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.12.003
Michaels also provides an insightful look at the master industry of doubt and deceit — the tobacco industry. A theme throughout the book is that the tobacco industry model, of sowing doubt and confusion, of pretending that there are scientific controversies, where in fact there is none, was followed by many other industries in subsequent years. Much of the first part of the book is organized according to specific toxic agents, such as second hand smoke, chromium, diacetyl (artificial flavoring), beryllium, a number of drugs such as Vioxx. In each case, Dr. Michaels chronicles how industry, with the help of paid scientific consultants, and sometimes a compliant government agency, fought to prevent the regulation or even public knowledge of their toxic products. The author provides several chapters on the legal and legislative events and issues surrounding the control of toxic products and the way scientific data is presented and managed in the legal system. An excellent chapter discusses the truly abysmal record of the Bush administration in the protection of workers and the public from toxic exposures. Finally, Dr. Michaels includes two chapters that provide possible solutions to the problems he sees with the use of unfair and illegitimate scientific expertise to fool the people and the regulatory agencies into allowing the dissemination of harmful products into our working and living environments. This book is clearly and passionately written, and will find an audience of concerned citizens who often find themselves wondering why some scientists are warning of dangers that others are apparently dismissing. The contribution of this book is to point out that many of these viewpoints are not in fact objective, but bought and paid for. This can often provide a tool to decide which side of a debate is being less honest about the real risks of industrial productivity. But the book also suffers from a certain bias and perhaps naiveté. Of course industry pays scientific consultants to present their side of the debate, and of course these consultants tend to find the data that support the arguments of their clients. In this way, these consultants are acting not as objective scientists, but as advocates, much like an attorney, whose job is to defend a point of view, even if it is not true. Is it an evil thing for scientific consultants to act this way? If it is, then we need to indict all lawyers, politicians, journalists, and many others, whose mission is generally to advocate for a point of view, rather than to present an objective, non biased view of reality. The key point, one that is glossed over without sufficient attention in the book, is that such advocacy is wrong if, and only if, it is mislabeled as objective unbiased truth. Throughout academia, the concept of conflict of interest requires scientists to report all connections they may have with private industry or other interested parties, that might have a stake in the outcome of the work they do. Scientists must do this in order to maintain their positions, to publish papers, to get grant funding. And
204
Book Review
the reason this is true, is because it is assumed by everyone that once a scientist is paid by an industry, (or indeed even by a public advocacy group, or other NGO) all results that are related to the industry must be suspect. The real sin, is when such disclosure of conflict of interest is not made. If a scientist covers up the fact that he/she has been paid or hired by some firm or agency, he/she is then guilty of a type of scientific fraud. There is not enough discussion of this point in the book. Dr. Michaels does call for full disclosure, but this is not a new idea, and is generally accepted in the field. The problem is that for the great majority of the examples cited in the book there is no hidden conflict of interest. The best chapter of the book is that which analyzes the terrible record of the GW Bush administration related to regulations and protection of the health and environment. One of the take away messages from this chapter and other comments throughout the book, is that often the scientific arguments become less relevant than the political goals of the administration. One of the glaring omissions of the book is the total lack of discussion of the same sort of abuses of the objective scientific process from the other side of the political fence, which were much more frequent in past decades. While Dr. Michaels does discuss the “junk science” concept that has been used to discredit research aimed at providing more stringent regulations, he does not delve at all into the origins of the term. In fact, there had been a lot of junk science produced at the behest of certain NGOs and advocacy groups in the past. These ranged from gross distortions of breast cancer incidence and risk, false claims that the US was facing a cancer epidemic, and that air and water pollution were leading causes of human cancer. There have been plenty of overblown scare stories that helped to generate counter claims of junk science, which were not always false. Scientists must always be ready to admit that they were wrong, that new data might contradict previous beliefs, and that sometimes, in fact quite often, the truth about the universe is surprising and unexpected. This view is not shared by Dr. Michaels, as manifested in the title of the book. For him, there is no doubt, and anyone who raises the issue of doubt must be a paid shill. How unfortunate, since, as he actually admits in many places, uncertainty
is part of science, and that means that doubt is not the enemy but the stimulator of the search for truth. Good science should be separated from the political and philosophical views of its practitioners, an ideal that is hard to uphold, but that is worth striving for. There should be no conflict of interest for scientists, whether such conflicts come from payments from industry or their own political convictions. The list of ways to fix what Dr. Michaels sees as the problem of the “doubt industry” is surprisingly weak. He seems to want to rely much more on the courts and legal remedies, mostly through civil action in tort cases. There is not sufficient space here to allow for any discussion of this matter. However, it can certainly be said that many objective, well meaning and environmentally friendly scientists will agree that the best way to deal with corporate pollution and other sins, is not through the tort system, as effective as it might have been in cases like the tobacco settlement. The great problem is that of backlash, and the fact (as Dr. Michaels acknowledges) that neither judges nor juries are truly able to grasp the reality of scientific uncertainty, and what it means for regulation and control of public health risks. In fact the chapter on Daubert, and the legal issues surrounding the use of expert testimony is the weakest in the book. It is not clear exactly what Dr. Michaels would propose in order to improve the current situation. Clearly, scientists who are paid by lobbyists and trade organizations might be selling their souls and their opinions for money. But it is not always true that expressions of doubt regarding pronouncements of toxicity are nefarious lies. It is a mistake to judge peoples' opinions and views only by who we think might be paying for them, and to look for conspiracies behind every statement that does not fit our version of the truth. If we have learned anything over the past decades, we should have learned that statements based on political views do not always stand up to more rigorous tests of truth. The whole idea of science is to remedy that. Conflict of interest None.
Seymour Garte E-mail address: [email protected].