Document Lo56Yynew0XLYNgONoOrnJ4a7

FILE NAME: Doubt Science (DBTS) DATE: 2006 DOC#: DBTS017 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Cranor Editorial from IJOEH - Science with Health Consequences Editorial Science with Health Consequences Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, a South Korean scientist conducting ducDteudbiofuosrsctiehnetifpichraersmeaarccehutcicoanl his stem-cell university research, resigned from on December 23, industry because is its often effects well known can adversely 2005, after a faculty committee found he had "intentionally falsi affect millions of consumers and receive considerable publicity. fied data in a landmark paper on cloning that appeared in the jour Thus, for example, many are prob ably aware that the editors of the nal Science this summer."1Not only was Dr Suk guilty of falsifying data, New England, Journal of Medicine expressed great concern about but he likely brought dishonor on himself, his family, his university, Merck scientists' withholding dis ease data from an article published and his country. In 1985 three officers of Film in the Journal.3The Merck scien tists' actions tended to underesti Recovery Systems were found guilty of the murder of Stefen Golub in Vmiaotxex.the life-threatening effects of wanhiIcllhinmoisurtdriearl cisouthrteuknidlleinr ga loafwainn occSuupsapteioctnarlesaenadrchenvthiraotnmafefnectatsl itnhdeivaidgueanltw"ikthnoowutsjutshtaifticsauticohn aacntds nhaerailltyhriescmeivuecshlliettslsevoisribnloe paunbdliocritdyi. create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that indi However, reliance on such research can ultimately affect thousands to vidual. Mr. Golub died of convul sions caused by exposure in the hundreds of thousands of people exposed to potentially toxic sub workplace to sodium cyanide used in a silver chloride recovery stances in the workplace and hun dreds of thousands to millions of process. Film Recovery Systems was overturned on appeal by the Illi otorditnoaxricy csiutibzsetnasncwehsotharreouegxhpostheed nois Supreme Court for technical reasons, but the justices concluded environment. For example, the Wall StreetJour that the evidence "was not so insuf ficient as to bar retrial."2 naljust reported that a consulting firm hired by Pacific Gas 8cElectric a sBcioetnhtitshteisnetecnatsieosnaarlelyexfatrbermiceaste--d Co. (PG&E) to fight the "Erin Brockovich" lawsuit modified data data and a company had such a contaminated workplace that an fsrtoumdy'as Cohriingeisnealstucdoyn, creluvseirosningththaet aecmuptleoyeteoxciocllapesxepdoasunrdesd.iedWfrhoimle lcionnkseudltcinhgrofmirmiu,mCthoemcaRnicsekr,.4r'u5nThbey gexretraetmcreiticainsmd, bthoethtwodecsaeservsianrge oonf htoaxsibcoeleonguisstedDbeynnainsumPabuesrteonfbfiarcmhs, different continua that pose sub stantial questions about scientists that, according to documents in a legal proceeding, paid over $7 mil who conduct human health and safety research and the companies lion for its chromium work.6 The modified chromium-(6) article that authorize research need sit.toHebaelthtakaennd smafoertey mthiesletrduetheaumtheodrischailpjooufrnthael asbtuoduyt stheorisoeusaltyrifsokr. its consequences for (the consulting firm, not the origi nal Chinese author in whose name it was submitted, conceived and wrote the altered paper).4And, the rthesaetarthceh swtaatse soufffCicaielinftolryniata, inntoewd considering regulations for c[thhraotmituhme -(s6t)u,dyh] asis "cdounbcioluudse."d4 Rankin Bohme, Zorabedian, and Egilman, in a recent issue of this journal, have documented other shortcomings of Paustenbach's research, much of it conducted for wcoitrhpoliraabtielityclliaewnstusitws.5ho are faced meIrtelwyotoulfdocbues aonmaisfteawkei,ndhiovwideuvaelrs, wriehtoy.hTahvee rsitsaegne itsostehtefolervmelisolefandoitnog scientific studies by the U.S. post market legal environment, com bined with large amounts of money at stake. Together these create con ditions that can lead to the corrup tion of science and put scientists' winittehgtrhiteyseagtoarliss.k in collaboration icaOteudr lteogaplrsoytsetecmtinisgfaprufbrolimc daendd workplace health. Most laws permit products into commerce with little or no legally required testing for health effects (drug and pesticide laws are exceptions). Moreover, what laws there are tend to be undLeitrtuletiliiszkendoawnnd apbooourltytheenf7o0rc,0e0d0. ttohe1i0r0d,0er0i0vacthiveemsicrealgissutbesrteadncfeosr aunsde itno U2,.0S0.0cosumbmstearnccee.s7Aarneodtheevrel1o,p0e0d0 etoaxcihcityyeatreswtinitgh.o8uItnleg19al8l4y rtehqeuUir.eSd. NmaattieodnatlhAecreadewmeyreofneSacrielynce1s3,e0s0t0i ugmeneesral ecxhecmeeidcainlsgproodnuecedmiinllvioonl pounds per year for which there was no toxicity information avail 177 able. Data were missing for 3,000 vsuoblusmtaen.c9eIsnprtohdeuecaerdlyin1t9h9e0shitghheerset was insufficient change in the data rtoepjourstt.i1f0y updating the Academy's The law also provides the con itnetxetgrittyh,atcoripnoflruaetencbeeshavsicoire,ntaifnidc risks from toxicants. Post-market laws create structural incentives for those subject to regulation to resist, delay, and frustrate actions aimed at protecting the public and the workforce. Where there is too little uevlaidtieonncse, toadsvueprpseorthperaolttehctiveefferecgts wbehciochmethedicsoeamspeaneyxtedroneaslintioets pfaoyr, resulting in higher profits than would otherwise occur. Similar structures create barriers for citi wzehnos seheakrmreeddresbsyintotxhiec toerxtpoorsupreers sonal injury law. Nothing happens if there is no or poor evidence of the relationship of harm to corpo rate negligence or malfeasance. Moreover, this context invites both ganrodssscainedntisfuicbteltehviciso.lations of social inteInndtiiovnidaullayl swciiethnhtiostlsdodrafitramismtphlait cating health harms mislead aauntdhoinritipeesr,mpietetirnsg, ahnadrmthetopuobccliucr, usonraiebsattoedresauplptirnogaicnhjurbieesin. gFiramcsceosr scientists that intentionally destroy and withhold studies showing adverse health consequences are guilty of serious moral shortcom ings. Nearly as disturbing are scien tists who delete positive results from studies to minimize reported risks and harms, the concern expressed by the New EnglandJour nal of Medicine.3 Such acts are pre sumptively acts of scientific and scoocnisaelqudeisnhcoensefsotyr,ciwtizitehns,inwjuhroioguos uinngprreosteeacrtcehd. as a result of mislead nieSs oamndewshciaetntmisotsremasyubdtleys,igcno, mcopna duct, and interpret studies in ways that will prevent or minimize the discovery of harm. The scientific techniques are less crude than destruction or withholding of stud ies. Nonetheless, if studies show no ehfafremcts,thbeurte thaererencoanadbveerusenfolergtual nate health effects for those exposed. Human studies can be too small, too short, too specific for sub species of disease, or they may be conducted too long after exposure has ceased to identify real adverse effects. Controls can be contami nated, and statistics can be manipu lated contrary to good scientific lpergaacltitceest.i1m1 oSnaynhdaesr cGritrieceizneldansdcieinn tists who assume there are no toxic effects until these are established by overwhelming human evidence.12 iorHoofwfirsmhsoualnddwteheaisrsesscsietnhteistbsewhahvo design studies that aim to minimize adverse findings? An American Petroleum Institute document s(irmecielanrtlytouanvperiloepdosinalliDtirg.atPioanusatennd bach made 15 years ago5) strongly suggests that API knows what stud ies will find before they are ever conducted.13,14 Are independent studies by the National Cancer Insti tute and university scientists on the relation between benzene exposure and blood diseases so threatening that they must be challenged at any icnovsotlvteod atnhde tointtehgerihtyealothf ctohnossee quences of workers and the public? adoHpatveed seoxmtreesmceielyntihsitgs hdeslitbanerdaatredlys of proof to ensure that findings of harm have not been "proven?" It can be tempting and financially rewarding to ratchet up standards of proof when interpreting data, but veil one's actions by claiming that one is only demanding "sound' oorurripgroordouucst"scstireantceeg.i1e5s,1176h"aDvoeubbeteins masboeusntotesd,19ovninyblehcahllforoidfet,o20balecacdo,,2108 t(hfieghtginegntehrealDeclahneemy iCclaalusei)n,d21ubsetrny zniodtiende idnyetsh,is22joaunrdnaolt.h23erTshreerceenctalny be plausibility to a claim that "more evidence is needed," since these relationships are difficult to diag nose and most scientific papers rou tinely employ this phrase. However, istelcf-ainntearlessot bweitheasfialyr efrxopmloitbeednifgonr results to those exposed when harmful exposures are present. There are also subtle issues here, of course. There will be well-moti vated researchers who disagree about the science. These points should be argued out in jour nals.24,25Moreover, scientists on the other side of the issues may testify teoxohibfaitrshboerytcoonmdintghseofscthieenirceowann.2d6 lHaorgweevaemr,oiunntscoonftemsteodneayreaats swtaikthe itnhveirtee caurelpapboiwliteyrfiunl dinesciegnntiinvges, ctohnat idnugctsitnugd,ieisn.teNropnreettihnegle, sas,nwd epsrehsoeunldt be past the time when scientists can claim ignorance about misleading sdtautda,y edxetrseigmnesl,y ihnitgehrpsretatantdiaorndss ooff proof, demands for high relative risks, and denigration of animal studies when such stances are widely known to minimize or fail to detect existing adverse effects. Those at risk of harm deserve even-handed, honorable, and professional scien tific approaches in a legitimate mefifgohrtt itnocuird.entify harms that they Dr. Suk's research so far as we kannyoowne.dFidilmnRoet copvheyrsyicSaylslytemhsadrmid not cause death of Stefan Golab because of dubious research prac tices. However, what unites the two is that when researchers in occupa tional and environmental health knowingly falsify studies, delete data, or design or interpret them so that adverse effects will be mini msioiznesd hoarvneotrereavleahleudm, athneicrodnescei bqeuhenacveios.r Fimrmays thnaott enimgamgeediinattehliys RcaeucsoevedriyseaSsyesteamnsd ddieda.thHoasweFvielmr, sotvaenrtiathl echlaonncgeseroftehramrm, warheeknnoswubn or strongly suspected, how close do 178 Editorial w w w .ijo e h .c o m INT J O C C U P ENVIRON HEALTH they and their scientists come to knowingly creating a "strong prob ability of death or great bodily harm" by failing to conduct scien tific studies with integrity to pro tect their employees and the gen eral public? At what point do violations of professional and sooucsialelgeatlhtircasnsagprpesrsoiaocnhs?more seri PCraorfelssFo.rCorfaPnhiolors,oMphSyL, PhD DUenpivaerrtmsiteynot of CfPahliifloorsnoipahy Riverside, CA 92521 E-mail: <carl.cranor@ucr,edu> References 1. sScainegn-tHistunquCit,sWovaedre,thNe, rKeoproeratnhcelofankinegd rbeesre2a4rc,h2.0T05h.eANle.wYork Times, Decem 2. Pael,op5le50uNO.E'N.e2ildl, F10il9m0R(e1c9o9v0er)y. Systems, et 3. ECxuprfrmesasinonGDof, cMoonrcreisrsne:yBSo, mDbraazrednieJrMe.t anla.lCtooxmicpitayriosfoRnoofefcuopxpiberangdasNtraopinrotexsetni Einnpgal tJieMntesdw, i2th00r5h;e3u4m3:2a8to1i3d-4a.rtNhrEitinsg.lNJ Mbeerd203,52302065, .<Mwwerwc.kNaEnJMd C.oorgm>p.aDnyec. em 4. Wcaanlcdemr;antheP.coSntsuudlytantitsedgoptohlloultdanotf itto. Wall Street Journal. December 23, p20ri0n5t./S<Bhlt1t3p5;3//0o1n2l6in5e7.2w2s3j0.c0o8m4./hatrmtilc>le. _ 5. Ebagrirleml:ancoDrp,oRraatnekcinorrBuophtmioen So.f sOcvieenrcea raonndmitesnetf.feIncttsJoOn cwcourpkeErnsvainrodnthHeeeanltvhi. 6. L20a0n4e;,11A:33P1o-7ll.u<tewrws wg.aiijoneha.scoJmer>s.ey lifts ltihmeitffiromr tsoxviienw. Wedorskkeopftsicciaelnlytisbtypaoitdhbeyr Mexaprecrhts.7T2h00e4[.Newark, NJ] Star-Ledger, 7. Huff J, Hoel D. Perspective and hovaezravridewidoefntthieficcaotniocneptassantdhevailnuietioalf phhuamsaenofhreiasklthas.sSescsamndenJt fWorocrkanEcnevriarnond Health. 1992;18:83-9. 8. Dennison R. U.S. HPV challenge and bPeroygornedss. iWvearRde, gKuelrasthioawn,EanndviCroennmteernftoarl DLailwemSmyam: poWsiuhmy : TTohxeic DIagtnaorGanacpes 9. TNharteioanteanl sRPeusbelaicrcHheaCltohu,nMcial.y 6T,o2x0i0ci5t.y TanesdtingP:rSiotrraittieegsi.es tWo Dasehtienrgmtoinne, NeDeCds: 10. NBaaitliaornJaCl,ABciandgehmamy PEr.ePsse,rs1o9n8a4l:c8o4m. mu 11. nGiecnatnioarno, CVo, lTleogmiuamtisRTa.mHaozwzinei,p2id0e0m2.io ltoogdicetsetuctdiienscrmeaasyeudnrdisekrsesotfimcaanteceorrafnaidl oHtehaelrth.di2s0e0as5e;1s.1:3In56t-J9. Occup Environ 12. WGrreitetnelnanDd,ireDctrPTHe,stiinmoOnyppoofsitSioanndteor Btioanxtefor rHDeeacltlhacraatroeryCJourdpgomraetinotn. 's(1P9e9t9i, BAapxritler3H0)eal(tchriCtiaqruei)n.g a scientist for 13. Ahami eSrtiucdayn: IPnetterronleaul mDoIcnusmtietunttes., 5S4h-a7n. g 14. tCoapcioenlltoraDd.icOt iclainndceurstrcylafimuns.diHngousstutodny 15. CEyhsreonncikclHe,J.AWpreilre29w,e2r0e0a5ll,yAwDr;oAngl.? Am J[arPguuibnlgic thHateaslttuhd.ies19m9u1s;1t 3b3e:42e9st-a3b2 bliesfhoerde "fbineydoinngd taharteacsiognaarebtltee dsomuobkte" 16. GcarueseenslcaanndcSe.r]I.nvited commentary: sci wenhcoewveerrseuswpruobnlgicahreeaslttihllawctrioonngs.: tAhmosJe Ptiuqbuliincg tHheeaEltyhs.en1ck99p1a;p1e3r3]:.435-6 [cri 17. MSciicehnatieflisc ADm. eDriocuanb.t 2i0s0t5h;9e6ir:9p6-r1o0d1u.ct. 18. HBreoawltnh &ProWpoilsliaalm, sDono--c. SNmoo.ki3n3g25a0n6d. <32h5tt0p6:./h/ttombl>a.ccodocuments.Org/bw/3 19. NBerowdYeuorrk:PP. aOntuhteroagneBoouosksM, 1is9c8o5n.duct, 20. DMeanrkiaolw: TithzeGD,eaRdolysnPeorlitDic.s oDfeIncediutstarniadl PCoallliufotironnia. PBreesrks,el2e0y0,2C: 2A26U-3n3i,ve3r0s0it-y1.of 21. iMngichuaneclesrDta,inMtyo:ncfoonrttoensteCd. Mscaiennucfeacatunrd tahned pernovtiercotniomnenotfAthmeJpPuubblilcic'sHheeaalltthh. 2[c0i0t5in;9g5:Sin3t9e-rSn4a8l, Hesilpl. aSn4d1,Knnootwelto4n6 memos]. 22. cMoiucnhta:eclsorpDo.raWteaditeicnigsiofnormathkeingboanddy btrlya.dMdeerdcicaanlceArnitnhrtohpeolUo.gSy. dQyueairntedrulys. 23. R19a8n8k;i2n:21B5-o2h7m. e S, Zorabedian J, EengdilamnagneriDng. hMeaaxltihm: izcionrgpoprarotefitstraanted IgnietsJtoOavccouidpliEtignavtiiroonn aHndearlethgu. la2t0io0n5;. 11:338-48. 24. TBerexialchoJ,aBndraintscocJoCns,uCltaasntltesm. IanntJBIO, cectuapl. 25. REnovthirmonanHKeaJ,ltAh.re2l0la0n5o;11F.:2E1l7e-v2a0t.ing the JleOveclcoupf sEcinevnitriofincHdeisaclothu.rs2e00[5le;1tt1e:r3]2,7I-n8.t 26. rGeitttl-iMn aJyNe,r CE.ooCkomLLp,arLisionntoonfO"BW",reGaadr- gerrsa'phisntfeorpr reatsabteisotnoss roeflatcehdesctharnagdeios. Ahicgahdly Rsiagdnioifli.ca2n0t 0d4i;f1f1e:r8e3n4c-e5s6 be[ftwouenend praladiinotgifrfasp'hsexcpoemrtps'arreedadwinitghsinodfepcehnedst erenatdrienagdserssu';gpgleasitnintigffsl'uenxgpeirmtsp'apiorsmiteivnet wpeenredemntucrheamdeorrse'; ftrheequdeinfftertehnacnesindaree otobosesruvbesrtavnatriiaalbitloitby]e, attributed to inter Carl F. Cranor is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, spe cializing in legal and moral philosophy. He has written widely on philosophic issues at the intersection of science and the law. He published Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy o f Science and the Law, as well as numerous articles in philosophy, science and law journals. He has just completed a book, to be published by Cambridge Uni versity Press, Toxic Torts: Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice. VOL 12/NO 2, APR/JUN 2006 www.ljoeh.com Editorial 179