- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Text Size
In Doubt Is Their Product, published in April,
epidemiologist David Michaels describes the growing corporate practice of
“manufacturing” scientific uncertainty to thwart regulation of products that
appear to pose risks. Michaels encountered the practice firsthand with
beryllium, a metal used at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, while he was the
Energy Department’s Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Now
head of
Where did you get your book’s title?
It comes from a 1969 memo by a Brown & Williamson
tobacco executive. He said: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the ‘body of fact’” linking smoking with lung cancer. That
tobacco campaign continues to this day, now focused on the issue of secondhand
smoke. Before the 1980s, industry could always say that even if smoking does
cause cancer, individuals choose to smoke. But as studies emerged showing that
nonsmoking spouses also face an increased risk of lung cancer, the stakes
changed. Recognizing this potential new liability, the industry hired more and
better scientists and strategized how to disparage the cancer studies in order
to avoid regulation.
You can document all this?
Absolutely. In great detail. And not just for tobacco. Interestingly, many scientists who initially pioneered this work for the tobacco industry on secondhand smoke now defend producers of beryllium, chromium, pesticides and a whole range of other chemicals by manufacturing doubt about their risks. I even have internal minutes of meetings with trade associations where scientists describe the strategies and studies they need to do for a suspect product to avoid regulation. My research shows that a campaign to generate scientific uncertainty has grown into a very lucrative product-defense industry.I know I’m making very strong statements, but I support every one of my assertions with powerfull documents. We’ve placed all of my book’s 1,100 references at www.defendingscience.org, the SKAPP website.
How widespread is this doubt generation?
A number of corporate scientists, even in the chemical
industry, are good researchers with great integrity. But when a product is
found to be dangerous, companies and their lawyers increasingly have been
turning to what I call mercenary scientists, researchers who will produce the
studies needed to question scientific findings suggesting increased risk.I’m especially
familiar with beryllium because I was in charge of protecting the health of
workers in the nuclear weapons complex where beryllium is used. This metal
slows down neutrons, which makes for a better nuclear blast. Studies … have
shown it also causes lung disease at very low exposure levels.The National
Toxicology Program has classified beryllium as a carcinogen, as has the
International Agency for Research on Cancer. A National Academy of Sciences
panel also came out saying
How visible are these doubt campaigns?
The science community is for the most part unaware of what’s going on because industry publishes much of this work in “vanity” journals where the peer review is done by scientists who work for the same industries or contract firms. These journals are not widely read. But the papers in them, which can run over 100 pages in length, are often used in regulatory proceedings and the courts. When independent researchers encounter such work, it’s important that they draw attention to it—and get critiques of it on the record. As long as there are corporations looking to limit regulation, they will be looking for scientists who will manufacture scientific doubt for them. It is a strategy that works all too well, and its success can be dangerous to the public’s health and to the environment. Pull quote: 'When a product is found to be dangerous, companies and their lawyers increasingly have been turning to …mercenary scientists."
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
His arrogance and disparaging comments aimed at those who work for industry and find fault with the "scientific" studies by activist scientists speak volumes about his interest in a true scientific debate.
Over the years such products as saccharine, DDT, and asbestos have been attacked viciously, removed from the marketplace, yet after significant, genuine scientific inquiry, have been found to be far more beneficial than dangerous.
Michaels' attitude reminds me of Al Gore's when, on one of the Sunday morning TV interview shows he succinctly suggested that the media not publish information that disagrees with his view of man-caused global warming.
Without regard to whether or not a person agrees with the concept of man-caused global warming, there is nothing but disaster ahead if we do not allow all sides to speak.
To be sure, there have been "scientists" who did junk science to support a view point. Many have supported "the world's ending" causes and many have supported industries trying to survive the onslaught of junk science being used to pursue businesses.
The tragedy is that the junk science with which we are bombarded every day serves only to degrade all science, causing even the most meticulous scientists to be viewed with cynicism. While skepticism is healthy, I doubt that the cynicism that has developed amongst thinking individuals is good for anyone.
The review of Geoffrey Kabat's "Hyping Health Risks" is a nice counterpoint to this commentary (same issue, page 29).
Dennis Buller
Drew Feldmann
President, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.