Embattled GWU Lead Researcher Responds

[Guest guest]

Embattled GWU Lead Researcher Responds

Posted by Mike DeBonis on Feb. 20, 2009, at 4:49 pm

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/02/20/embattled

-gwu-lead-researcher-responds/#comment-473062

The last couple of weeks haven't been easy on Tee Guidotti. The

professor in Washington University's School of Public Health

has been accused of serious ethical misdeeds regarding his 2007 study

of environmental lead in D.C.—allegations which were aired in

articles in Environmental Science and Technology and in the

Washington Post.

LL " aggregated " both of those articles in his LL Daily roundup, which

was enough to earn this e-missive from Guidotti, who is currently

working in Saudi Arabia.

The City Paper recently ran a story that requires correction.

Over the last several weeks, my work and that of my colleagues on the

public health implications of lead in drinking water has been

attacked, distorted, and misrepresented. It has been alleged that we

allowed WASA to dictate our findings. That is a false accusation. It

has been said that we minimized concerns over lead in order to

protect WASA: that is untrue and based on misleading innuendo. There

have been insinuations of a sinister conspiracy also involving the

Department of Health, EPA, and CDC – this is total fantasy.

The important points are:

1. Our research team did nothing wrong.

2. The local utility (the Water and Sewer Authority, WASA) did not

have the power to dictate our findings.

3. The contract was between WASA and the university - I was not

a " paid consultant " (as described). The university was reimbursed for

my time on the work.

4. We did not minimize the importance of exposure to lead from any

source.

5. The data in our 2007 study are valid, the analysis was accurately

reported, and we stand by the conclusions.

Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, DABT

LL explained to Guidotti that he had done no original reporting on

the subject, and that his objections were best raised with the folks

at the Washington Post and at Environment Science and Technology, but

LL did say he'd air his defense here at City Desk.

LL will point this out: Guidotti's Point 1 is a value judgment. Point

2 is a matter of continued debate; the plain language of the

agreement would seem to have permitted WASA editorial review, even if

that was not the intention. Point 3 would seem to be a matter of

semantics. Point 4 depends on how you interpret the sentence, " There

appears to have been no identifiable public health impact from the

elevation of lead in drinking water, " which could easily be read to

minimize the impact of waterborne lead (vis-a-viz, in the context of

the report, paintborne lead). And on Point 5, pending a promised

official review of the study, to quote one Lebowski, " Well,

you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. "

Tags: lead, Politics, Tee Guidotti, WASA

previous

D.C. Jail Establishes New Procedures For Transgender Inmatesnext

New-Look Outlook Debuts Sunday in WaPo

2 Responses to " Embattled GWU Lead Researcher Responds "

Mrs. Kramer Says:

February 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Where have I heard this song before????? Pretty sure it was sung by

the same " artist " . Same theme.

ACOEM Responds To Allegations. By Tee Guidotti Feb 2007

http://www.acoem.org/moldresponse.aspx

Mrs Meng Says:

February 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Let's hope Tee stays in Saudi Arabia where he cannot harm anymore

people with his " medical opinion for hire " to the highest biddder.

-----------------------------------------------------

Suspicion raised about possible ethics violation in paper on D.C.

water

Author's contract raises concerns about sponsor's interference with

published research.

http://pubs.acs.org/action/showStoryContent?doi=10.1021%

2Fon.2009.02.05.251768 &

Renner

Publication Date (Web): February 5, 2009

The coauthor of a 2007 Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) paper

concerning the public-health impacts of lead in Washington, D.C.,

drinking water failed to fully disclose his relationship with the

city's water utility. This lack of openness raises questions about

whether the author of the paper violated the disclosure policy of

EHP, the peer-reviewed journal of the U.S. National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences.

U.S. EPA

DC WASA conducts corrosion control experiments to keep lead levels

low in Washington, D.C., drinking water. Replicate loops are set up

for these experiments. Visible here are dull-gray lead pipe sections,

shiny copper pipe sections, Nalgene holding tanks, and tubing.The

paper, " Elevated Lead in Drinking Water in Washington, D.C., 2003–

2004: The Public Health Response " (DOI 10.1289/ehp.8722), is a case

study of how public-health interventions may have mitigated the

potential effects of lead exposure during the 2001–2004 " lead crisis "

in Washington. During that period, the city's drinking water was

inadvertently contaminated with lead after a change in the chemicals

used to disinfect the water. The paper's authors concluded, " There

appears to have been no identifiable public health impact from the

elevation of lead in drinking water in Washington, D.C., in 2003 and

2004. " In the paper, the corresponding author, Tee Guidotti,

acknowledged that he and his group had received a contract from the

D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA) but failed to disclose that

before any research involving DC WASA support could be published, it

had to be approved in writing by the utility. Guidotti is the former

chair of the department of environmental and occupational health at

Washington University (GWU) and the former director of the

university's Center for Risk Science and Public Health (CRSPH).

A study published last week in ES & T (DOI 10.1021/es802789w)

contradicts the conclusions of the 2007 Guidotti et al. paper. The

new study says that from 2001 to 2004, hundreds of babies and

toddlers in Washington had elevated levels of blood lead as a result

of the tap water contamination.

Reacting to the new data on the effects of lead during the water

crisis, D.C. City Council members have requested an investigation

into whether public-health agencies and the water

utility " negligently or intentionally " misled the public about the

consequences of the high levels of lead in drinking water, and

whether the organizations should have tried harder to find a link

between high levels of lead in the water and high levels of lead in

children's blood.

When told about the apparent conflict of interest, EHP Editor in

Chief Hugh Tilson said to ES & T, " On the face of it, the information

you have presented raises severe and significant questions about the

violation of our policy on sponsorship that need to be disclosed. " He

added, " If we don't have an explanation, then our editorial board

will have to consider what action to take. "

Burkhart, who was EHP editor in chief when the paper was

published, expressed his surprise about the apparent conflict and

said, " We weren't aware of that. They didn't disclose that. "

ES & T was not able to reach Guidotti for comment and has been told

that he is currently in Saudi Arabia. Marina Moses, a coauthor of the

EHP manuscript, is now the principal investigator in the DC WASA

contract with GWU. " It is great that you are raising these

questions, " Moses says. " This is a complicated issue. " She promised

to speak to ES & T further about the issue, but several calls made to

her before the deadline for this story were not returned. Multiple

calls to f Reum, interim dean of the School of Public Health and

Health Services at GWU, also were not returned.

Ceding final approval of a researcher's work to a sponsor " violates

the policies of EHP and all of the premier science journals because

it takes away the autonomy of the researcher. The scientists must be

free to publish the research as they find it without having to report

back to a sponsor, " says Sheldon Krimsky, an expert on scientific

ethics at Tufts University.

The EHP paper is coauthored by Guidotti and his colleagues at GWU and

at the D.C. Department of Health. It includes a financial disclosure

statement acknowledging contract support from DC WASA for CRSPH, and

for GWU scientists Guidotti, Moses, Goldsmith, and Ragain.

From 2004 to 2006, DC WASA paid GWU $714,286, according to a summary

of expenses DC WASA provided to ES & T in response to a Freedom of

Information Act request. The contract between DC WASA and GWU places

restrictions on the authors' freedom to publish their

work: " Publication or teaching of information specific to DC WASA,

specifying DC WASA by name and directly derived from work performed

or data obtained in connection with services under this Agreement,

must first be approved in writing by DC WASA. " (To see the contract,

click here and scroll down to Article 15.)

This language appears to contradict EHP's policy on author autonomy ,

which states, " As a condition of review and publication, authors must

certify that their freedom to design, conduct, interpret, and publish

research is not compromised by any controlling sponsor. "

Emails sent from Guidotti to nie Hemphill, assistant to DC WASA's

general manager, indicate that Guidotti was required to seek the

water utility's approval before he submitted the study for

publication. In an April 6, 2006, email about the paper, Guidotti

wrote: " We think that it is very important to get the story out as

soon as possible and completely as possible. Could we nudge the

office of [DC] WASA legal counsel to move things along a bit? They

did not seem to feel the same need to review it three months ago, so

if they do not object perhaps we should just go ahead and submit it. "

EHP's policy specifies that the journal " will impose a 3-year ban on

publication by any authors found to have willfully failed to disclose

a competing interest. Implementation of the ban will be made in

consultation with the EHP Advisory Board. " The policy adds that " a

paper may also be retracted or an Expression of Concern published and

appended to the online version of the article. " EHP's board will meet

again on March 24, but it is unknown now whether this matter will be

discussed.

Krimsky applauds EHP's written policies. " EHP's policies are very

good and very sound. The journal is extremely progressive in its

decision to require strict enforcement and acknowledgment, " he says.