NRDC releases report recommends science journals protect themselves from misuse

[Guest guest]

NRDC releases report recommending science journals protect themselves from

misuse

Sass

_http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jsass/nrdc_releases_new_report_on_sc_1.ht

ml_

(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jsass/nrdc_releases_new_report_on_sc_1.html)

Today, I released a new report on the need for scientific journals to

enforce strict and effective conflict disclosure policies for authors, peer

reviewers, and even journal editors. The report, titled, Effective and

Practical Disclosure Policies: NRDC Paper on Workshop to Identify Key Elements

of

Disclosure Policies for Health Science Journals is _available_

(http://www.nrdc.org/health/disclosure/) on the NRDC website.

The NRDC report is also featured in my _Guest Editorial _

(http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/117-6/guesteditorial.html) in today's online

release of

the June issue of the premiere environmental science journal, Environmental

Health Perspectives. In that article I quote , long-time

editor of the British Medical Journal lamenting at how the pharmaceutical

industry has used science journals to give a " stamp of approval " to

industry-funded studies that promote their drug products.

Why is it so important for science journals to require authors to disclose

conflicts to their readers? Because _effective disclosure policies _

(http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/117-6/guesteditorial.html) play an important

role in protecting journals from becoming unwitting agents of the type of

propaganda, distortion, and corporate marketing, that and

other journal editors are concerned about.

When a toxic chemical starts to look like it might be causing harm, maybe

to the environment, maybe to our health, the product manufacturer will

usually start to circle the wagons defensively, and that defense includes

published science.

A good example is _bisphenol A_ (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bpa.php)

(BPA), a toxic component of many plastics that also contaminates the bodies of

most Americans, and has rightly got the public up in arms. The _Washington

Post _

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002121\

..html) reported this weekend that BPA industry executives

huddled to frantically find a strategy to defend its chemical, including

finding

a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country

about the benefits of BPA'. This kind of blatant denial of harm is the

first step in a well-worn three-dog defense. It goes something like this:

1) It's not my dog (i.e. product).

2) Okay, it's my dog, but it didn't bite (i.e. harm) you.

3) Okay, my dog bit you, but it was your fault (i.e. you smoke, other

chemical exposures, family history of cancer, etc.)

The first defense, denial, can buy some time while the second and third

defenses are being prepared. And, it's these last two defenses that are the

subject of this blog. That is, the generation of evidence, preferably

including lots of published scientific data, suggesting either that the product

is not harmful, or that it is not harmful under the conditions it is being

used. For example, maybe it causes cancer at higher doses, but not at

whatever doses people are exposed to (see my documented review of EPA's_

re-analysis of the pesticide captan_

(http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0 & & Ntk=All & Ntx=mode+ma\

tchall & Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8

084+8055 & N=0 & Ntt=EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0296-0047%20 & sid=1219CAEA548B) , in

discussion with the manufacturer, as an example).

One of the most outrageous examples of this dog-defense is the

industry-science that only some types of asbestos fibers cause cancer, but not

all

types (see this documented as the _ABC Myth_

(http://www.nycosh.org/workplace_hazards/Asbestos/myth_of_chrysotile.pdf) ,

Anything But Chrysotile). In

reality, whatever you may think of this argument, the fact is that asbestos

does not occur as a pure sample of one fiber type, so the risk of cancer is

always present.

Journals that require authors to disclose the funding source for the work,

and any other financial conflicts or non-monetary competing interests of

the author, provide a measure of scientific honesty for their readers.

Sass, Ph.D.

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Email: _jsass@..._ (mailto:jsass@...) Tel: 202 289 6868

blog: _http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jsass/_

(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jsass/)

" The quality of a lifetime and the depth of love are not measurable solely

in terms of quantity -- I wish that every day that remains to you be rich

and full. " -

NRDC advocates for disclosure of information, regard for scientific

inquiry and facts, justice for disempowered people, honesty by government, and

corporate accountability. (_www.nrdc.org_ (http://www.nrdc.org/) )

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy

Steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585042x1201462767/aol?redir=http://\

www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=Jun

eExcfooterNO62)