Comment:
The Global Scope of
Chemical Exposures in our 21st Century Environment: Indoors and Outdoors
Article Contributions from Sue Kegley
Dear Steve,
"In response, the editor of Chemical &
Engineering News, the main trade magazine of the American Chemical Society
noted that the only answer is to admit past egregious behavior and make public
health data on the safety of chemicals for there must be no more secrets and
lies (http://www.pubs.acs.org/cen)."
Well, Steve,
I checked out the Chemical & Engineering News web site mentioned by Dr.
Seba, but when I tried to access items containing the words "Bill
Moyers" (there are seven of them) I couldn't, because I don't have a
subscriber number and password. If you have a way of accessing information on
this web site, it might be worth seeing exactly what the CEN editor said. Of
course, who knows whether his industry will do what he is suggesting.
I read this e-mail
with interest and do have access to the ACS web site. I went and pulled down the relevant documents. The Secrets
and Lies editorial is first, written by the editor, Madeline Jacobs.
Next is a collection of letters to the editor that came in on the
issue, including one I wrote with several other friends of mine who are also
chemists and are also disgusted with the behavior of the chemical industry and
the oily scum that rubs off of them on onto the rest of us chemists who are
trying to protect human health and clean up the environment. There were 8
letters to the editor about the issue---7 of them basically said it's time to
clean up the act of the chemical industry and admit that there were (and are)
problems and do something to fix them. One
letter was from someone in St. Louis, MO (Monsanto's home town) with a
predictable pro-industry perspective.
A point worth taking from this collection of letters is
that activists have many allies in the field of chemistry. In my 15 years of experience teaching chemistry in a
university setting and interacting with other academic chemists and bench
chemists in industry, I found that the majority of people are concerned about
the environment and the damage chemicals have done to human health.
The academics are taking steps to educate students about environmental
problems, their causes and solutions. There are many who are avidly
anti-corporate who would welcome the opportunity to work with advocacy groups
to provide research (for free in many cases) to back up points we suspect are
true, but don't have the resources to collect the data.
In my experience, the truly evil don't-give-a-damn,
screw-the-environment, this-stuff-won't-hurt-you-what-are-you-worried-about
chemists certainly exist, but are not the norm, particularly in academic
settings. The average chemist is just interested in how things work at the
molecular level. Fascinated (and
frequently blinded) by this curiosity and wonder, these average chemists can,
at worst, be accused of being unaware of the larger societal consequences of
their experiments. While this is
not good, it's normal for the average human being to not look beyond their own
back yard. It's quite different
in corporate settings, since industrial bench chemists have little power, and
often a company will fire thousands of them in the space of 3 months because
that quarter's profits are down. But
these are not the people in charge of the corporate decision-making that has
resulted in so much pain, suffering, and degradation of the environment.
Most of the powerful leaders in the ACS probably never took a chemistry
course in their lives. They have business degrees, and their only motive is
the next quarter's profits. THAT
is the larger problem.
The letters to the editor were followed by a full-court
press in subsequent weeks to recover from the damage. Articles included a
Guest Editorial from Dennis Reilley, Chairman of the American Chemistry
Council, several by the editor
Madeline Jacobs, and one from Attila Pavlath, ACS President, all trying to
recover from the damage and cheer the members on to make sure the public
understands how "important" and" beneficial" the chemical
industry is to our society. Not a word about how the industry needs to own up
to what it has done and change
its ways. At this point, I got
disgusted with the whole enterprise and have not been following it
lately, but I'm sure there has been more propaganda since.
I've appended all the articles, FYI.
Best,
Susan Kegley Pesticide Action Network
EDITOR'S
PAGE April 2, 2001 Volume 79, Number 14 CENEAR 79 14 pp.5 ISSN 0009-2347 [Next
Story]
Secrets And Lies
Madeleine
Jacobs Editor-in-chief
Timing is everything in life, and the timing couldn't
have been worse for me last week. I had been invited to speak at my grandson's
high school about attracting the best and the brightest students into careers
in chemistry. Unfortunately, my talk came on the heels of a damning indictment
of the chemical industry in the form of a Bill Moyers PBS special titled
"Trade Secrets" (see page 9). This 90-minute program, followed by a
30-minute roundtable discussion, contained excruciating detail about the
serious health hazards associated with vinyl chloride and industry's attempts,
decades ago, to hide the hazard from--indeed to lie to--its employees.
In the
Moyers report, we learn about chemical industry workers who died from exposure
to chemicals. We see one of these workers, Dan Ross, die--through photographs
taken of him after he was diagnosed with brain cancer linked to his exposure
to vinyl chloride. We hear his widow, Elaine, tell Moyers: "They hurt
somebody that meant more to me than my whole life. I would have gladly taken
his place to die. Gladly."
Ross sued her husband's employer, Conoco. The lawsuit
uncovered boxes of "secret" industry documents which show clearly
that individual chemical companies and the chemical industry's trade
association--now called the American Chemistry Council (ACC)--covered up the
health effects of exposure to a variety of chemicals. We see documents dating
back as far as 1959, and as recently as the early 1990s, in which the industry
makes statements that are seemingly aimed at undermining its workers' and,
ultimately, the general public's health.
I don't have space to tell you everything about this
program or the roundtable discussion, which was the chemical industry's only
opportunity to respond to Moyers' allegations. If you missed the program, PBS
has an extensive website (http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/), where you can
access the entire transcript of both the program and roundtable. ACC also has
a website rebutting the program (http://www.abouttradesecrets.com/). I urge
readers to visit both websites.
But I do have space for a few observations. The program
dealt largely with decades-old information. It identified practices concerning
employee health that, I sincerely hope, have been corrected by the chemical
industry. It rehashed information that had been covered in a 1998 series of
articles in the Houston Chronicle and in C&EN in the 1970s. And it did not
ask anyone from industry to comment in the program itself, because, as Moyers
explained during the roundtable, "investigative journalism is not a
collaboration between the journalist and the subject."
ACC's representative on the roundtable made matters worse
by initially attacking Moyers rather than leading with the eventual positive
message that the chemical industry has corrected the problems and that
chemicals and the chemical industry have made life better for people.
The program has severely damaged the chemical industry's
reputation. I know this because the parents and kids at my grandson's school
told me so. Indeed, who could miss the message of this program Here are
Moyers' closing words: "Half a century into the chemical revolution,
there is a lot we don't know about the tens of thousands of chemicals all
around us. What we do know is that breast cancer has risen steadily over the
last four decades ... brain cancer among children is up by 26% ... testicular
cancer among older teenage boys has almost doubled ... infertility among young
adults is up, and so are learning disabilities in children. We don't know why.
But by the industry's own admission, very little data exist to prove chemicals
safe. So we are flying blind. Except the laboratory mice in this vast chemical
experiment are the children. They have no idea what's happening to them. And
neither do we." This is a breathtaking non sequitur--extrapolating from
unacceptable chemical exposure of workers decades ago to the conclusion that
chemicals today are killing all of us and irrevocably damaging our children.
The only real answer to a program of this kind is for industry to admit that
its past practices were egregious and that there is still much to be learned
about the safety of chemicals. The industry must continue to test chemicals
and make public the resulting health data. There must be no more secrets and
lies.
LETTERS
to the Editor May 7, 2001 Volume 79, Number 19 CENEAR 79 19 pp. 6-10 ISSN
0009-2347 [Previous Story] [Next Story]
I'm writing after viewing the recent Bill Moyers PBS
special "Trade Secrets: A Moyers Report" (C&EN, April 2, pages 5
and 9). I worked as a process chemist in the chemical industry for three years
prior to my return to graduate school for a Ph.D. I agree with the premise
that the chemical industry still does things that are not environmentally
benign, and which may impact the health of chemical industry workers and the
general public. It seems that the Chemical Manufacturers Association-now the
American Chemistry Council (ACC)-has lobbied continuously against regulations
due mainly to economic concerns regarding compliance with safety and
environmental regulations. Complying with new regulations may require
expensive modifications of newer plants or shutdowns of older plants, and even
cost-effective modifications can run in the millions of dollars.
All of us who have been associated with chemical
processes know this to be the case. And the trend toward outsourcing of
chemical production only shifts the burden to smaller companies that are less
able to evaluate hazards effectively and, frankly, are less likely to protect
their workers or the environment effectively. Visiting just a few low-cost
tollers will convince anybody of this fact. But the trends continue as
stockholders push for greater profits from chemical companies.
There is not an accepted method for evaluating
information regarding subtle effects such as chronic environmental releases
due to production or the environmental impact of new products versus older
products. These things have costs to society, but not necessarily to chemical
companies. Using cost to evaluate these items breaks down as a decision-making
method at some point. But in essence, the release of chemicals to the
environment is something that is not necessary and can be prevented-at a cost.
It is a moral and ethical choice.
Can we rely on the chemical industry to draw the line on
this issue when their profits are at stake? I don't believe that is the wisest
choice. As a collection of individual scientists, separate from the profit
motive, better decisions might be made and lobbied for. Our profession should
start to take a stand on environmental issues, even if it involves fighting
against our employers. Maybe we need a nationwide union of chemists and
engineers who have the goal of ensuring that our chemical industry behaves as
responsibly as possible, with respect to the environment and the people living
in it. Would this be bad for the chemical industry? Possibly. But would it be
good for chemists and society? Absolutely.
David Mosley Cambridge, Mass.
In discussing the recent editorial, I am not convinced
that one can pin the words "secrets and lies" on anybody-either
industry or PBS.
Nonscientists have been trying very hard to shift
scientific discussion away from "peer-reviewed and published fact"
to the area of polemic, self-developed ethics, hype, and exposé. Also,
communications majors have done an excellent job and should be praised for
that, and they control public opinion far more effectively than scientists do.
Nevertheless, in the world of facts, words like "secrets,"
"lies," "hiding," and "cops and robbers"
generally do not belong.
What are the facts? What is the EPA-published toxicity of
vinyl chloride? What was it 10 years ago? Note that the EPA IRIS (Integrated
Risk Information System) is public, transparent, and has references to every
published study, yet nobody would think of taking toxicity data for hexavalent
chromium from IRIS-they all take it from Hollywood films. To the extent that
there are numbers, the nonscientific numbers are almost always at odds with
those published in journals. This is what C&EN should research and publish
and with references.
Leave words like "secrets and lies" to the paid
nonscience communicators.
Edwin A. Matzner St. Louis
I just read Madeleine Jacobs' editorial "Secrets and
Lies." We have to admit that there are people who lie and deceive, the
chemical industry being no exception-neither is any other sector of business
or human interaction free of the problem. Prime examples are Charles Keating
Jr. (banking), Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken (stock brokerages), Richard
Nixon and Spiro Agnew (politics), and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy
Swaggart (religion). A very good example of denial of the obvious and
attempting to deceive the public is the cigarette industry. The list is
endless. However, this does not excuse the actions of the individuals or
corporations. The more responsibility and power a person or group has, the
more they should be held accountable for their actions and penalized
accordingly when they violate the public trust.
We need to take the blows, admit our mistakes, and move
on. At the same time, we need to hold the irresponsible parties liable for
their actions, regardless of the length of time between the crime and its
discovery.
Tom Gardner Landenberg, Pa.
As a current graduate student in organic chemistry, I
often find myself in a similar predicament to the one described in Jacobs'
editorial. I find it increasingly difficult as a teaching assistant to
demonstrate the importance of chemistry to encourage undergraduates to pursue
a career in the chemical sciences. Despite the innumerable contributions
chemists have made to improve the human condition, negative images of the
chemical industry loom large in the mind of the public. From my perspective,
two factors account for this trend: fear of the unknown and a perceived lack
of corporate accountability.
People tend to fear that which they do not understand.
Until society makes a real commitment to primary and secondary science
education for all students, fear and misunderstanding will continue to drive
public opinion of the chemical industry. The reader need not look any further
than K. M. Reese's Newscripts section to see abundant examples of popular
misconceptions of chemistry.
Although I did not see the PBS program, the information
presented on the PBS and ACC websites paints a dismal picture. Individual and
corporate conduct that were clearly criminal went largely unpunished. When
companies are allowed to put profit ahead of human life, the public has
obvious reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, misconduct by a tiny minority of
the chemical industry shapes public perception of all chemical companies, even
those that are rigorously committed to worker safety and environmental
stewardship. Only when the responsible parties are held accountable will
public trust be restored.
Kevin L. Greenman Irvine, Calif.
Moyers' PBS report provided us with a disturbing look at
practices in the chemical industry that have a chilling likeness to events
surrounding the downfall of the tobacco industry. With broad calls for
congressional hearings on the chemical industry (see http://www.comeclean.org),
perhaps it is time to rethink the efficacy of some long-standing practices.
We might hope that cover-ups and manipulation of
information by some within the chemical industry are things of the past.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that information is still concealed,
results of "scientific" tests are distorted, and delays for
"further study" are frequently thrown up as roadblocks to
regulation. Thus, public right to know about the potential hazards of toxic
chemicals is obstructed. While chemists are often blamed by the public, it is,
in reality, the business/managerial end of the industry that provides the
driving force for this behavior. Unfortunately, overly narrow focus on the
bottom line can easily color issues of worker/consumer/environmental safety as
mere economic obstacles to be overcome by whatever means.
Those concerned about the integrity of science should be
alarmed. Certain elements within the chemical industry have violated the
precepts of science by determining conclusions in advance and manipulating
experiments and data until the results support claims that the risks
associated with certain chemicals are acceptable. A scientist intent on
knowing the truth would notice that there is a growing body of evidence
linking chemical exposures to adverse effects on humans and the environment.
With animal-based toxicity tests providing concrete evidence to support this
hypothesis and epidemiologic studies showing increased age-adjusted incidence
of human cancers and fertility problems associated with chemical exposures
(see http://www.psrla.org/pesticides/pesticides_and_health_kit.pdf), we cannot
responsibly ignore the possibility that chemicals are a larger part of the
problem than was initially evident.
It's time for a change. For chemists, it means resisting
pressure from management to do bad science. ACS should support them in these
efforts. For companies that wish to avoid being discredited and sued to within
an inch of their corporate lives-think tobacco industry here-this means
delivering on Responsible Care by ensuring that toxicity information on all
high-production-volume chemicals is made available to the public now. It means
not blocking the release of EPA's dioxin report. It means disclosing
information about hazardous chemicals to the public and regulatory agencies
before it has to be extracted by court order. In the end, public health, the
environment, and the chemical industry will all benefit.
Susan Kegley Berkeley, Calif.
Jeff Curtis San Francisco
Miriam Simmons Stillwater, Minn.
The article by Marc Reisch on the PBS documentary refers
to the chemical industry's commitment to such things as "product
stewardship," "zero emissions," and "community
outreach."
Is it surprising, however, that the American public would
remain skeptical of commitments such as these when they also hear statements
such as the following from Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman: "Few trends
could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society as the
acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to
make as much money for their stockholders as possible"?
Peter Hansen Iowa City, Iowa
Jacobs closed her editorial with the statement,
"There must be no more secrets and lies." I fully concur. I have
seen too many people from our industry die because of exposures to certain
chemicals in the workplace. I suspect that in the companies where I have
worked, employee exposure was allowed primarily from ignorance, because the
same managers who had run the facilities during those days took very different
positions when the facts were known. That there was a concerted effort to keep
the facts hidden is one of the albatrosses we bear, but it serves us well to
remember that there is no shame in honesty. To give priority to profits and
jobs over health and safety is false economy; the burden is shifted only in
time.
Chemists have always responded well to the challenges of
addressing multiple conflicting requirements for the performance of their
products and processes. We have learned that incorporating health, safety, and
integrity at the design stage has proven time and time again to be most
economical for our companies and for our society. We must continue to be open
and responsible and to ensure that the general public sees us as that. The
latter will be the greater challenge.
Dene Taylor New Hope, Pa.
In her editorial, Jacobs accuses Moyers of
"extrapolating from unacceptable chemical exposure of workers decades ago
to the conclusion that chemicals today are killing all of us and irrevocably
damaging our children." But Moyers made no such claim. In fact, the
segment of the program quoted in the editorial carefully avoided concretely
establishing such a link. It merely puts facts side by side and allows viewers
to draw their own inferences. As a scientist, I know that much of what Moyers
said on the subject of the modern chemical industry is unsupported hyperbole.
But what Moyers really attacked was industry's credibility-and on this score,
the industry has failed very badly in its opportunity to respond.
Of course, we heard the usual defenses: the value of
chemistry and chemicals to society, how much the industry has improved, how
much more thoroughly chemicals are tested today. What was missing from the
industry representatives' statements was any genuine acknowledgment of or
regret about the disregard for public and worker safety that various chemical
companies have demonstrated over the years. It doesn't take a degree in
chemistry to guess what really prevents this kind of acknowledgment; it is the
same thing that prevented an appropriate response by the industry in the first
place: the fear of liability and the attendant threat of economic loss.
Industry protests about its present practices, true or false, ring hollow in
the context of its refusal to face up to the facts about its past.
Jonathan Hamlow Minneapolis
EDITOR'S PAGE GUEST EDITORIAL
June 4, 2001 Volume 79, Number 23 CENEAR 79 23 pp. 6 ISSN 0009-2347 [Next
Story] Dividends From Science
Dennis H. Reilley is chairman,
president, and chief executive officer of Praxair. He is also chairman of the
American Chemistry Council.
Conducting research is a major part of developing
innovative products, improving competitive advantage, and ensuring public
health and environmental quality. Investment in research provides essential
information to make business and governmental decisions and improve the
public's confidence that its best interests are being served.
The members of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) have
committed substantial new resources toward the critical objective of
evaluating the potential health and environmental impacts of our products and
businesses. These voluntary programs include the High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge and the Long-Range Research Initiative (LRI). Through the efforts of
ACC, EPA, and Environmental Defense, the pace of screening tests conducted to
determine potential health and environmental effects of HPV chemicals has
increased globally. By 2004, U.S. companies will have completed testing on the
majority of the 2,800 HPV chemicals, and the results will be publicly
available. In addition, the industry will act on results in a timely fashion
in accordance with the principles of Responsible Care.
In January 1999, ACC members committed more than $100
million over five years to better understand how chemicals interact with the
environment and human health. Sixty percent of the LRI research under way is
conducted at the CIIT Centers for Health Research (established in 1976 and
formerly known as the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology), while the
remainder is performed at universities and in collaboration with government
research agencies.
CIIT scientists frequently collaborate with scientists
from other laboratories, including the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, EPA, and more than 20 universities and research
organizations. In 2000, 50 research articles, review articles, book chapters,
and other scientific documents were published, and 39 manuscripts were
submitted or were in press by the end of the year. Following are some of the
recent research results from CIIT and their impact on public health.
Expanding Knowledge of Inhaled Chemicals: Researchers
from CIIT have advanced understanding of the mechanisms by which chemicals
enter the body via the respiratory tract, illustrating how the dose in an
inhalation animal study can be compared with humans. Ongoing work centers on
understanding what populations may be more susceptible to inhaled
chemicals--for example, how children's lungs differ from adults' in terms of
the doses they would receive, even when breathing in the same environment.
Incorporating State-of-the-Art Science Information: CIIT
researchers developed an up-to-date risk assessment on inhaled formaldehyde,
working under the latest draft guidelines for cancer risk assessment
established by EPA. This new work demonstrated significantly lower risks for
various environmental and workplace exposures compared with earlier
assessments, which lacked specific data and had to be based on default
assumptions.
Applying Advanced Testing Methods: Chloroform is produced
in very small amounts during the water chlorination process. Early studies
showed that very high doses of chloroform caused cancer in mice and rats,
resulting in conservative regulatory actions. Subsequent research at CIIT on
the mechanism of chloroform toxicity showed that high doses caused effects in
the rodents by killing cells, an effect that does not occur at low-level
environmentally relevant doses. This research shows the value of understanding
more about mechanisms of carcinogenesis. As a result of this research, EPA has
revised the risk assessment of chloroform.
Decisionmakers in government and industry rely on these
and other scientific research results to assess the potential hazards of
chemicals. Default assumptions must be used in the absence of such
information, which can lead to over- or underestimates of risks, neither of
which serves the public interest well. The LRI program seeks to improve the
scientific foundation of risk assessment. Results from the research are made
public regardless of outcome to increase knowledge of the potential effects
and exposures of chemicals produced and marketed.
Through efforts such as these, industry, regulators, and
the public will have a scientifically improved basis for making decisions that
further protect public health and the environment.
Dennis H. Reilley
Praxair Inc.
Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS
EDITOR'S PAGE
June 18, 2001
Volume 79, Number 25
CENEAR 79 25 pp. 5
ISSN 0009-2347
Modesty Does Not Become Us
Madeleine
Jacobs Editor-in-chief The cover of the May 24 issue of Nature caught my eye
with this blurb: "Chemists: Too shy for their own good." Not a
question, mind you, but a statement.
I quickly
opened up the journal to find not one but two articles devoted to the topic
[Nature, 411, 399, 408 (2001)]. The first was an editorial. The gist of the
editorial is familiar terrain to C&EN readers. "Chemists and
chemistry have never been more vital to science and society than now," it
states. But "the discipline is easily misunderstood, and those working in
it are frequently underappreciated. ... Chemists have allowed those from
outside the field to characterize it--to define what chemistry is and what it
is not. To the public, chemical science is too often synonymous with the
industry with which it shares its name. So chemistry means belching chimneys
and poisoned rivers, not life-saving medicines and space-age materials."
In the article, eminent chemists such as George
Whitesides and Stuart Schreiber of Harvard University agree with author David
Adam that "new developments in chemistry often seem to end up being
appropriated by other disciplines." Adam writes that "it is time for
the subject to claim achievements as its own--or risk failing to attract the
brightest young scientists."
The solution, Nature says, is that "more of the
frontline chemists streaming across the discipline's borders into
attention-grabbing multidisciplinary research must make their voices heard.
They should proclaim their roles to colleagues and try to ensure that chemical
contributions are made known to the media."
Indeed they should. And if you doubt the power of a
well-thought-out, sustained effort to influence public opinion, look at the
success of the American Chemistry Council's pilot "Good Chemistry
Campaign."
Last year, when the Chemical Manufacturers Association
changed its name to ACC, it also adopted a slogan, "Good Chemistry Makes
It Possible." In February, ACC launched a pilot campaign using this
slogan in three locales (C&EN, May 14, page 13). The campaign had four
goals: transform the industry identity to one that is dynamic and innovative,
achieve recognition for industrywide initiatives such as Responsible Care,
communicate the benefits of products made possible by chemistry, and earn the
respect of key audiences.
At the ACC general membership meeting earlier this month
(page 18), chemical executives were briefed on the pilot in Pittsburgh;
Springfield, Mass.; and Iberville Parish, La. A key component was advertising
on billboards, on radio, and in newspapers. But equally important was the
participation of chemical company employees in community events tailored to
the specific locale.
Studies conducted in February, before the $1.5 million
campaign got under way, and in May, after the public had been exposed to ads,
showed a definite positive shift in favorable perception of the chemical
industry. For example, of members of the public over the age of 25 who were
polled,14% were favorable toward the chemical industry at the beginning of
February, but by late May, 38% held a favorable opinion. ACC is now analyzing
the pilot and hopes to expand the program on a national, sustainable scale.
Dow Chemical CEO Michael D. Parker told ACC members:
"We are, as an industry, talented, capable people. But we need to marry
our great analytical capabilities to our emotion, passion, belief, and
commitment" in connecting to the public and communicating the chemical
industry's value to society. Parker is profiled in this issue by C&EN's
Mike McCoy (page 21). The Nature editorial put it this way: "If more
chemists established these connections themselves, and talked up the potential
benefits, their contribution would not be so easily overlooked." There is
a profound and daunting challenge facing the chemical industry, chemistry as a
discipline, and chemists and chemical engineers as professionals. Each of us
must make a personal commitment to communicating the value of chemistry.
Chemists involved in basic research and in industry have a great story to
tell. Let's eschew modesty and tell it.
July 30, 2001
Volume 79, Number 31
CENEAR 79 31 p. 32
ISSN 0009-2347
[Previous Story] [Next Story]
HELGE WEHMEIER
American Chemistry Council's Long-Range Research Initiative chooses areas where it can
make an impact
MADELEINE
JACOBS
In January 1999, American
Chemistry Council (ACC) members committed up to $100 million for a five-year
program "to increase knowledge of the potential and realized risks that
chemicals may have on the health of human and wildlife populations and the
environment"--in short, to better understand how chemicals interact with
the environment and human health. Since then, the program, called the
Long-Range Research Initiative, or LRI, has met with some skepticism by those
outside ACC and even by some ACC members. The question most frequently posed
is, "Why is ACC doing this?"
Helge H. Wehmeier, president and chief executive officer
of Bayer Corp., has an answer--actually, several answers. Wehmeier was
involved with LRI's formation and has been chairman of the ACC committee that
oversees the development of the program. Last month, he talked with C&EN
about the program.
"If we want to convince the public that good
chemistry makes it possible, we need to convince them that it is good
chemistry."
From the beginning, Wehmeier says, ACC had several goals.
One was "enlightened self-interest as part of Responsible Care," he
says. "We asked ourselves, 'Will we in the future be forced to do this
research anyhow by the government, or will we do the right thing because of
our responsibility regarding our products?' We felt that the future of the
industry was at stake." But also, he says, ACC wanted to be able to
answer the question posed by "Jane Q. Public: namely, 'How do the
products of the chemical industry affect my health, the health of my children,
and our environment?' Answering this question is an area where the interest of
the public and the interest of industry converge."
The early months of the program were spent prioritizing
how the limited funding would be allocated. In the beginning, Wehmeier admits,
the initiative was very broad based, but ACC soon realized that it needed to
narrow its focus.
"We were looking at 10 areas of science:
carcinogenicity, respiratory toxicity, etcetera--the so-called 'icities,'
" he recalls. "However, this bit-by-bit approach was difficult for
the individual citizen to comprehend; they wanted answers to issues like
children's health. So we decided that, while the 'icities' were critical to
understanding the potential risks from chemicals, we needed to communicate the
results of our research in the context of these issues."
Now, the program's focus areas include the following:
* Development and refinement of methods to improve
the evaluation of potential risks of chemicals to public health and the
environment.
* Sources,
transport, fate, and exposure of chemicals in the environment.
* Identification and evaluation of potential impact of
chemicals on susceptible populations.
Moreover, ACC recognized that "research is like a
new frontier," Wehmeier says. "It's constantly moving." Having
a set amount of funding "gave us a sense of urgency" to select
priority areas for funding, as well as look for potential collaborators,"
he says.
The program has three objectives: Conduct new research
through world-class scientific institutions, develop new testing and screening
tools to support risk assessment, and support informed decision-making by
government, industry, and citizens.
Sixty percent of the LRI research under way is conducted
at the CIIT Centers for Health Research (established in 1976 and formerly
known as the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology), while the remainder
is performed at universities and in collaboration with government research
agencies. ACC issues requests for proposals which are peer reviewed by
independent, external scientists. Then LRI awards research contracts to
institutions based on highest scientific merit and relevance to the chemical
industry and the mission of LRI. The requests are posted on ACC's website,
http://www.americanchemistry.com.
Research completed by CIIT on the mechanism of chloroform
toxicity is an example of work to improve methods in the risk assessment area.
Chloroform is produced in small amounts during the water chlorination process.
Earlier research showed that very high doses of chloroform caused cancer in
mice and rats. CIIT scientists demonstrated that such high doses caused
effects in the rodents by killing cells, an event that does not occur at
low-level doses. As a result of this work and acceptance by the scientific
community, the Environmental Protection Agency revised its risk assessment of
chloroform.
Endocrine, reproductive, and developmental toxicology
issues make up about 30% of the LRI budget for 200--the largest component of
research. The program uses animal models to investigate effects in human
health and wildlife. One project involves a study of genistein, a
phytoestrogen found in soybeans and soy products (see page 35). CIIT
scientists are trying to understand the mechanisms by which genistein may
interfere with reproductive development.
Wehmeier is especially pleased that members of the
European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) and the Japan Chemical Industry
Association are also involved with LRI. The International Council of Chemical
Associations (ICCA) coordinates research across these three organizations.
ICCA and its member associations have adopted several
clear principles, he notes. "For example, the research results are made
public regardless of the outcome, and industry has committed to act on these
results in a timely fashion."
Wehmeier is well aware that many people doubt the
validity and independence of industry-supported research, but he is convinced
that the published results will win these skeptics over. "A good start
has been made in a process that allows the chemical industry to be
proactive--rather than reactive--on matters of truly vital interest to society
and to our companies," he says.
And, he adds, LRI needs to be seen in the context of
ACC's Responsible Care and the "Good Chemistry Makes It Possible"
public image campaign. "If we want to convince the public that good
chemistry makes it possible, we need to convince them that it is good
chemistry." And that, he says, is what LRI is attempting to find out.
ACS COMMENT
August 6, 2001
Volume 79, Number 32
CENEAR 79 32 p.45
ISSN 0009-2347
[Previous Story] [Next Story]
BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING THROUGH CHEMISTRY
ATTILA E.
PAVLATH,ACS PRESIDENT
Depending on your age, the above
title might bring back memories of times when this statement was proudly
displayed by one of the world's largest chemical companies. Unfortunately,
over the past several years, increasingly negative publicity has become
attached to chemistry by sensationalist headlines and reports. In the end,
this company decided (wrongly in my view) to switch instead of fight, and it
abandoned this motto. However, this was just one failure to counteract the
decline of the public image of chemistry. Many of the practitioners of
chemistry also took the easier way out by remaining silent.
We should not apologize for chemistry; we should
proudly publicize what chemistry has contributed to our lives.
Initially, we tended to dismiss these attacks as
irresponsible, tabloid-style sensationalism that should not be dignified with
an answer. As the "politically correct" trend gained momentum, the
silence was maintained by many for fear of being ridiculed. Only a handful of
chemical professionals spoke up, but their rational, middle-of-the-road
arguments were usually ignored. Chemical spills, mishaps, and accidents tend
to be reported with three-inch headlines, regardless of the magnitude of their
impact. Have you ever seen a similar headline about the discovery of a new
polymer--or any chemical product, for that matter--that made life easier?
It is now time to change our attitude toward these
attacks. I believe that this is not just an option, it is a must! We should
not apologize for chemistry; we should proudly publicize what chemistry has
contributed to our lives. We must make the public realize what life would be
like today without the practical contributions of chemistry.
In 1850, the large majority of the U.S. population was
needed to produce enough food for the whole nation. Today, as a result of
various contributions from chemistry, only 2% of the population is involved in
food production, not just for ourselves, but for export as well. Yes, there
were and are problems, but in life there is no "zero risk," no
"perfect" solution. Even the most beneficial, highly heralded
action, scientific or social, is likely to have some drawback. But I am proud
to point out that chemistry always addressed the problems that might have been
derived from some previous chemical discovery and developed solutions for
them. For every negative effect, there are at least 100 beneficial ones.
Unfortunately, the large part of the general public responds to the size of
the headlines.
As I indicated in my presidential message in January, I
want to improve the public image of chemistry. I appointed a task force that
has been working hard for more than a year to collect those developments in
chemical technology over the past 125 years that have improved our lives. The
task force's diligent work resulted in a very impressive proof of the
importance of chemistry in every aspect of life. These areas include energy,
transportation, environment, food, health, communication, and material--with
dozens of examples in each.
The results are being summarized in the form of a novel
exhibit that will be first shown at the fall ACS national meeting in Chicago,
Aug. 26-30. The exhibit emphasizes, in an easily understandable way, these
discoveries and their effects on our lives. It will be given the widest
possible publicity at the meeting. I invite you to visit the exhibit, which
will be in the Vista Room of the McCormick Place Convention Center.
The next step is to translate this display into a
permanent testimony for chemistry in various ways, and I need your help and
suggestions on how to get this information efficiently to the general public.
Those of us who will attend the meeting do not have to be convinced of the
value of chemistry. It is the general, nonscientific public whom we must
reach. This is just the beginning.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
From time to time, ACS committee chairs and national
officers write comments for C&EN. ACS members who wish to read more
comments can find them on the Web on C&EN Online at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/html/acscomments.html.We
must continue to be on the alert on two fronts. One is to find improved ways
to publicize new achievements in chemical technologies with the potential for
better things for better living. This is what John and Jane Q. Public
understand, even if they did not take chemistry in high school. The other is
to be alert for misleading, sensationalist headlines. While some of the media
operate on the "good news is no news" principle, the major outlets
are responsible and are willing to listen to rational counteropinions. This
news might not appear with the same prominence, but it will present a
different view to the public. This must be an ongoing, large-scale operation.
Last year, on the initiative of then-president Daryle
Busch, ACS established a symbiotic relationship with the Green Chemistry
Institute. I am working on creating a coalition for a Center for the Public
Image of Chemistry, which would have the dual responsibility of publicizing
facts and counteracting sensationalist half-truths. This would also serve as a
source for middle-of-the-road, responsible journalism. There will always be
some supermarket-tabloid reporting, but this way we can present a much-needed
balance of views to the public--views based on logic and facts rather than on
emotion and myths.
Views
expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of
ACS.
Susan E. Kegley, Ph.D., Staff Scientist/Program Coordinator
Pesticide Action Network, North America Regional Center
49 Powell Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 981-6205 ext. 316, Fax: (415) 981-1991
Pesticide Action Network, advancing alternatives to pesticides worldwide.
Visit our Web site at http://www.panna.org
* Explore our extensive resources (updated daily)
* Find out about our organization and work
* Join us!
Need detailed information on pesticides? See our comprehensive database at
http://www.pesticideinfo.org