Writing in a recent PLoS Biology Perspective, Herbert Needleman describes The Case of Deborah Rice. Rice chaired an EPA panel convened to consider risks posed by the fire retardant decabromobiphenyl ether (deca). According to Needleman, when the panel submitted its report in February, 2007 the American Chemistry Council sought to have Rice removed from the panel, rather than responding to the report directly. The EPA complied with the request and removed all of Rice's comments from the report.
I can only judge the case on the evidence provided in Needleman's report, but the evidence he presents seems compelling. Rice's comments were excluded not because her science was faulty, but because her scientific opinion would have been inconvenient for the chemical industry.
I can only judge the case on the evidence provided in Needleman's report, but the evidence he presents seems compelling. Rice's comments were excluded not because her science was faulty, but because her scientific opinion would have been inconvenient for the chemical industry.
Having said that, I am disturbed when a scientist makes assertions like this:
The ACC appeal and the EPA response are a clear threat to scientific integrity. But that doesn't necessarily mean that EPA policy can be completely determined by the scientific findings of its expert panel. To see why, read this column by David Goldston in Nature.
If you don't have time to read Goldston's column, consider this: All prescription drugs have side effects. They are mostly rare and often fairly minor. But those used in the treatment of severe illnesses may have severe side effects. Do we ban them as a result of those side effects? No. We balance the good they do with the risks they pose. In deciding how to regulate deca EPA policymakers must perform a similar balancing act, weighing the risk of toxicity against possible benefits and comparing both with those of alternatives that are available.
Scientists can describe the consequences of various levels of exposure to deca or its alternatives and evaluate the consequences of reducing or limiting its use Scientists might even rank various scenarios from "good" to "bad" in terms of health outcomes. But if adopting a "good" alternative will divert resources from other desirable outcomes, we may be faced with deciding which alternative is "good enough" -- and that's not a scientific question.
To paraphrase Goldston, the policy issue is "How much risk from deca is acceptable?" And that's a policy decision, not a scientific one.
[I]t used to be that most people who opted for a career in the laboratory understood that they were accepting a modest lifestyle. Industry scientists have a different value system. Faced with a critical report by the deca panel, the first response of the bromine industry was to protect their bottom line and get Rice fired.It's not just that Needleman attributes illicit motives to the chemical industry in this case, a case in which the attribution may be justified. It's not just that Needleman tars Ph.D. scientists who work for the chemical industry with the same brush as industry executives. It's that he conflates a real challenge to scientific integrity -- the suppression of Rice's scientific analysis -- with a policy difference -- the question of the whether deca poses unnecessary risks.
...
I recite this sordid affair because it displays the ethical insouciance of industry, and of those PhDs who wear the caps and gowns of the academy, while they embrace the mores of the marketplace.
The ACC appeal and the EPA response are a clear threat to scientific integrity. But that doesn't necessarily mean that EPA policy can be completely determined by the scientific findings of its expert panel. To see why, read this column by David Goldston in Nature.
If you don't have time to read Goldston's column, consider this: All prescription drugs have side effects. They are mostly rare and often fairly minor. But those used in the treatment of severe illnesses may have severe side effects. Do we ban them as a result of those side effects? No. We balance the good they do with the risks they pose. In deciding how to regulate deca EPA policymakers must perform a similar balancing act, weighing the risk of toxicity against possible benefits and comparing both with those of alternatives that are available.
Scientists can describe the consequences of various levels of exposure to deca or its alternatives and evaluate the consequences of reducing or limiting its use Scientists might even rank various scenarios from "good" to "bad" in terms of health outcomes. But if adopting a "good" alternative will divert resources from other desirable outcomes, we may be faced with deciding which alternative is "good enough" -- and that's not a scientific question.
To paraphrase Goldston, the policy issue is "How much risk from deca is acceptable?" And that's a policy decision, not a scientific one.
Leave a comment