RE: CDC not the only one.....

[Guest guest]

A case of calling the Pot calling the Kettle....

A case of Do as I say, NOT as I do....

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/04/epa_scientific_committee

s_and.php

EPA, scientific committees and conflicts of interest: a follow-up on

the Deborah Rice affair

Category: Congress • Environmental health • Food safety • Product

safety • Regulation • Regulations • Research support • Science policy

Posted on: April 6, 2008 3:26 PM, by revere

About a month ago (March 1, 2008) we brought you the story of how a

highly reputable and knowledgeable scientist, Dr. Deborah Rice of the

Maine Department of Maine Department of Health and Human Services,

was bonced off of an EPA scientific advisory committee because the

chemical industry trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC),

objected that she had a bias. How did they know? Dr. Rice, as part of

her duties as toxicologist for the State of Maine, testified before

its legislature that on the basis of a review of the scientific

evidence she believed the deca congener of the brominated flame

retardant PBDE should be banned. The Bush EPA, compliant as ever to

industry wishes, bent over and Dr. Rice was relieved of her

responsibilities on the committee. This was not unusual for the Bush

administration. They have established their bona fides as genuine

outliers in the way they interfere with science. No other

administration has been as flagrant or as blatant or as shameless.

Nevertheless it is a disgrace. Now it is also the subject of a

congressional inquiry.

The inquirer is the tenacious Dingle, Chair of the House Energy

and Commerce Committee. He and the Chair of the Oversight and

Investigations of Subcommittee, Bart Stupak, have written the ACC a

letter asking for detailed information on the role they played in the

Rice affair and the reasons for their complaint to the EPA. In

particular Dingell and Stupak want to know how the evidence of Rice's

lack of objectivity differs from the evidence for eight other

scientists who have served on these committees that the ACC

apparently had no object to (the eight named scientists are

Schnatter, Klaunig, Swenberg, Vernon , Lorelei

Mucci, Dale Sickles, " Betty " , Borghoff, and

Deborah Barsotti. Some have received funding from the chemical

industry and some have also expressed opinions on chemicals being

considered by advisory committees they sit on, although the opinions

were those the ACC liked.

Dingell and Stupak also inquire into the relationship of ACC to one

of the main scientific journals in the field of regulatory

toxicology, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology ( " RegToxFarm " in

the trade), the official journal of International Society for

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (ISRTP) which ACC helps to

fund:

" Peer reviewed journals play an important role in shaping and

informing scientific debate about the safety of consumer products, "

Dingell said. " Our Committee intends to determine what influence the

chemical industry yields over the scientific community and whether

that influence is proper. "

" Americans rely on sound science to ensure the safety of everyday

products, " Stupak said. " If that science has been compromised by

industry, then the health and safety of the public is in danger. "

(Press Release, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2, 2008)

The way this is framed -- what makes Deb Rice different than the

others? -- is the right way to ask it. It turns out I know three of

the eight named above and all are excellent scientists. There was

every reason for them to be on the advisory committees they were on.

They know their stuff, and although they have a different perspective

than I do, that makes for a better conversation. Deb Rice is no

different except they don't like what she says.

Dingell is another case. I might ask the same question about Mr.

Dingell. Dingell represents the auto industry in Congress and is

often called " dirty air Dingell " because of his stubborn opposition

to clear air regulations. He is a tenacious investigator and has done

some good and some harm. But in my not so humble opinion, he has no

standing to lecture others on conflict of interest.

Just thought I'd mention it.