Webcast regarding Taxicab Science

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

This looks like one worthy of marking your calendars. Dr. s of GWU is

giving a webcast regarding science, written specifically for

litigation/product defense needs to be viewed as advocacy work,

not science. " Taxicab Science " .

" Dr. s, director of The Project on Scientific

Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP)and research professor and

acting chairman of the Department of Environmental and

Occupational Health at The Washington University School

of Public Health and Health Services "

" In particular, work by scientists employed by firms

specializing in product defense and litigation support must be

seen for what it is: advocacy, rather than science. "

Public Health Reports “Meet the Author!†Web Cast on Beryllium

and OSHA Standards-February 4, 2008

http://www.publichealthreports.org/interactive/webcast.cfm

On Monday, February 4, Public Health Reports will sponsor

a “Meet the Author!†web cast titled “Beryllium: Why Do OSHA

Standards Remain the Same, Even When the Science Changes?†Dr.

s, director of The Project on Scientific Knowledge

and Public Policy (SKAPP)and research professor and acting

chairman of the Department of Environmental and Occupational

Health at The Washington University School of Public

Health and Health Services, will discuss the devastating health

effects of beryllium exposure and the subsequent industry

versus science controversy that ensued.

Dr. s recently wrote an article on the topic that

appears in the January/February issue of Public Health Reports.

****************************************************************

In a 1947 report, entitled Public Relations Problems in

Connection with Occupational Diseases in the Beryllium

Industry, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asserted that the

ability of the U.S. government to produce nuclear weapons was

threatened by the high incidence of severe health effects

associated with exposure to beryllium, a metal vital to

weapons production. In response, the AEC established a workplace

exposure limit which dramatically reduced beryllium disease

incidence.

This limit is known as the “taxicab standard†since it was

determined by two AEC scientists working in the back seat of a

taxi on their way to a meeting.

Over the next several decades, however, increasingly powerful

evidence accumulated that Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD), a

progressive and irreversible inflammatory lung disease, was

associated with exposure to levels below the “taxicab standardâ€

and by the 1990s, scores of workers employed in the production

of nuclear weapons had been diagnosed with CBD.

Attempting to prevent strengthened government regulation, and

to avoid negative publicity that would discourage use of the

metal, the beryllium industry waged a concerted effort over

decades to counter the accumulating scientific evidence of

beryllium’s toxicity. The industry relied on expert services

provided by a major public relations company and a

leading ‘product defense’ firm. Eventually, when the

scientific evidence became so great that it was no longer

credible to deny that workers developed CBD at levels permitted

by an out-dated standard, the industry responded with a new

rationale for delay: that more research was needed to determine

the best standard.

The industry’s efforts have been, for the most part, successful.

While each year brings new studies linking CBD with beryllium

exposures below the current standard, the “taxicab standardâ€

remains the limit enforced by the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration in private sector workplaces. U.S.

civilian nuclear weapons workers have greater

protection than private sector workers; in 1999 the Department

of Energy issued strengthened beryllium regulations, reducing

the workplace exposure level that triggers protective action by

a factor of 10.

The lessons from this case study for public health policymakers

include:

The lack of CBD cases in the 1950s should not have been seen as

proof the standard was adequate. Industry scientists defended

the “taxicab standard†long after it was correctly recognized

as inadequate by independent scientists.

In particular, work by scientists employed by firms

specializing in product defense and litigation support must be

seen for what it is: advocacy, rather than science. This study

illuminates the practice of “manufacturing uncertainty,†the

strategy used by some polluters and manufacturers of hazardous

products to prevent or delay regulation or victim compensation.

To best protect public health, we must consider the hazards

associated with a toxic material through the entire life cycle

of the product. The presentation will begin at 2:30 p.m. on

Monday, February 4. The web cast is free and open to the

public. Instructions to view the web cast will be available

online 30 minutes prior to the broadcast. No registration or

log-in password is necessary. The web cast requires that

Adobe Flash be installed on your computer.

http://www.publichealthreports.org/interactive/webcast.cfm

>> Science News January 2008

>> Judging Science

>> Courts may be too skeptical of research done with juries in

>> mind Janet Raloff

>>

>> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080119/bob10.asp

>>

>> From Mason to Law & Order, legal dramas have proved

>> among the most predictably popular series on American

>> television. In such shows, a defendant's guilt or innocence

>> typically comes to light only after expert witnesses

>> testify before a jury, justifying—or challenging—theories

>> about how a defendant could have perpetrated the crime....

>>

>> Much of what people know—or think they know—about U.S.

>> jurisprudence traces to such shows about criminal cases.

>> What few nonlawyers realize is that these shows aren't

>> especially good models of cases involving torts-noncriminal

>> suits where plaintiffs claim harm from a company's products

>> or activities. In these cases, judges frequently bar from

>> the courtroom at least some scientific experts and the data

>> on which they might have testified (SN: 10/8/05, p. 232).

>>

>> These judges are responding to a 1993 order by the Supreme

>> Court to screen potential junk science from U.S. trials.

>> That instruction appears in the court's opinion for a tort

>> case known as Daubert (for Daubert v. Merrell Dow

>> Pharmaceuticals).

>>

>> As judges have struggled to comply over the past 15 years,

>> many have relied on guidance offered early on by

>> Kozinski, a judge with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of

>> Appeals. He weighed in after the Supreme Court handed

>> Daubert back to be decided by his court.

>>

>> While acknowledging that " we [judges] are largely untrained

>> in science and certainly no match for any of the witnesses

>> whose testimony we are reviewing, " Kozinski said that it's

>> the judge's responsibility to determine whether proposed

>> expert testimony " constitutes 'good science.''' ...

**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002\

5

48)