Dr. Epstein's article banned from Science Magazine

Subject:   "Sound Science" Or "My Mind is Already Made Up - Don't Confuse Me With the facts--
Date:        Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:04:16 -0400
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          Senior Research Scientist
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation - Integrated Pest Management

Dear Lyndon, As the Senior Scientist from California, I thought you might like to read an article entitled: Dr. Samuel Epstein's Letter Banned From "SCIENCE MAGAZINE".

The following letter, which gives a good insight into how corporate ("sound") science works in the global arena behind closed doors, has been rejected from Science magazine despite three requests for reconsideration from Dr. Samuel Epstein. The issue at stake is democracy and the social control of science and technology, which is all the more urgent, as technologies become more powerful and uncontrollable. This is not the first time that magazines such as Science, Nature and New Scientist have refused to give voice to (real) scientists dissenting from the corporate ("sound science") view, to which they give undue and apparently unlimited access. Nature Biotechnology even published a long article attempting to discredit a (real) scientific review - on the potential hazards of the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter (now published) - in the worst style of gutter journalism, and only gave a very grudging right to reply after a delay of three to four months. I have long canceled my personal subscriptions to these magazines, and I suggest others might consider doing the same. We can have no confidence in the International Academy Council being proposed, unless and until the composition of this Council has gone through the necessary open democratic process. Scientists like us have tried our best to engage the scientific community as well as the general public in open debate. Some, like Dr. Arpad Puztai had lost his job and bore the brunt of vilification from the ("sound") scientific establishment. We have all had our lives and work ruined, not the least of which by being forced to read boring scientific papers and documents that we would never have volunteered to read if we didn't think it was so important for the public to be informed of what corporate ("sound") science has in store for us. This is what democracy is all about.

We have repeatedly invited and challenged those real scientists who disagree with us to debate the science in public and in terms that the public can understand. They have turned us down again and again. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Bruce Alberts, and an unheralded group of a dozen other presidents of national science academies, quietly gathered behind the scenes to propose the creation of an International Academy Council (IAC) as a global science advisory board. The object of the IAC, expected to be formalized this month, is to provide "impartial scientific advice" to governments and international organizations on issues such as genetic engineering, threatened ecosystems, and biodiversity. While most would agree with Alberts "that the world needs much more advice from scientists," there are serious questions on reliance of advice from an NAS-modeled IAC.

Through its huge think tank, the National Research Council (NRC) chaired by Alberts with a full-time staff of 1000 and a $200 million budget, the NAS conducts studies and prepares about 200 reports annually, largely under contract to federal agencies. However, in flagrant violation of governmental openness rules (the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act) which Alberts still vehemently opposes, NRC committees and panels meet secretly in closed sessions, fail to disclose their minutes and conflict of interest statements, and fail to require that their membership reflects balanced representation of divergent interests and viewpoints. Illustrative is the conduct of the NRC committee on "Comparative Toxicity of Naturally Occurring Carcinogens" which issued the 1996 report on "Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet." This report trivialized concerns on cancer risks to infants and children from food contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides, as these were alleged to "occur at levels far too low to have any adverse effects on health." Acting on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of about 100 leading independent experts in public health and cancer prevention, and representatives of a wide range of labor and citizen groups, one of us (SSE) warned Alberts that this committee was grossly unbalanced and "disproportionately weighted with industry consultants;" it should further be noted that no pediatrician was invited to serve.

Alberts responded admitting "that some of the committee members have performed some consulting for industry," but dismissed these concerns as "the same members have also advised or consulted for regulatory agencies." Other concerns were expressed that the composition of the NRC Committee could "be used to discredit or undermine" the previous NRC report on "Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children," which explicitly warned of cancer risks to children.

A more blatant conflict of interest is evidenced by the composition of the March, 1999 NRC biotechnology panel with its disproportionate representation of experts directly linked to the industry. This conflict was compounded by the subsequent discovery of a revolving-door relationship between the industry and NRC. Unknown to the panel, its executive director Dr. Michael Phillips was secretly negotiating for a senior position in the Biotechnology Industry Organization. He joined the industry some 3 months later.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
2121 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, IL 60612
(312) 996-2297

Edward Goldsmith, M.A.
The Ecologist
46 The Vineyard, Richmond, Surrey, U.K.
(011) 44-181-332-6963

Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D. Department of Biology
The Open University
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, U.K.
(011) 44-1908-653-113

Well, Lyndon, I know how Dr. Epstein feels. On December 9, 1999 I wrote the Managing Editor of the American Entomologist: "It is unfortunate that the integrity of the American Entomologist has been tainted by the Fall, 1999 article entitled "Human health Risks from Cockroaches and Cockroach Management: A Risk Analysis Approach". In a slick, deceptive ploy, the authors of the article, who are really Dow AgroSciences employees, attempt, however unsuccessfully, to justify in a camouflaged infomercial the "safety" and "effectiveness" of Dow's product chlorpyrifos under the mask of two concepts "risk assessment" and "integrated pest management". The article not only "bastardizes" these two worthy concepts but runs smack in the face of Jim Morris' 11/8/99 U. S. News and World Report article entitled "The Stuff in the Backyard Shed" on the dangers of Dow's chlorpyrifos. . There are many safe, non-toxic and far more effective alternatives to eradicate cockroaches (rather than continuing to use any volatile poisons). I welcome the opportunity to share these alternatives with your readers." My rebuttal letter was never published.

When Dorothy was in Oz, she asked: "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" Lyndon, I have to ask you are you a real scientist or a "sound scientist"?

TOP
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.

Nontoxic Products Recommended by Steve Tvedten

Now Available

Safe 2 Use Products and Services