Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists

Abstract

The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies performed or funded by industry are identified as such, meet high scientific standards, and are not suppressed when their findings are adverse to industry’s interests. The more a given study follows these practices and standards, the more confidence one can place in it. No federal laws, rules, or policies express a presumption that scientific work should be ignored or given lesser weight because of the source of its funding. To the contrary, Congress has consistently mandated that agencies allow interested or affected parties to provide information to them and fairly consider that information. All participants in scientific review panels should disclose sources of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The former should be considered in seeking a balanced panel rather than being used as a basis for disqualification. Conflicts of interest generally do require disqualification, except where outweighed by the need for a person’s services. Within these constraints, chemical industry scientists can serve important and legitimate functions on scientific advisory panels and should not be unjustifiably prevented from contributing to their work.

Credibility of Scientists: Barrow and Conrad Respond

“…They accurately pointed out that the act draws a distinction between conflicts of interest, which hinge on financial self-interest, and bias, which may exist for a host of reasons including research funding sources. Alas, in their haste to condemn public interest groups who wish the government would adhere to the letter and spirit of that law, Barrow and Conrad (2006) incorrectly characterized objections by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Environmenal Working Group (EWG) to two scientists nominated in December 2004 to sit on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory panel evaluating the risk of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (EWG and CSPI 2004). This misrepresentation may have helped prove their thesis, but it in no way reflects what is actually going on at the U.S. EPA, the National Academies, and other agencies that routinely form advisory panels.…”

“…This misrepresentation may have helped prove their thesis, but it in no way reflects what is actually going on at the U.S. EPA, the National Academies, and other agencies that routinely form advisory panels. Barrow and Conrad (2006) suggested that the CSPI and the EWG challenged two scientists because they were "funded by industry." In fact, there were nine industryfunded scientists listed as potential candidates for this panel.…”

“…By contrast, only one scientist on the panel can be said to be "environmental" in orientation. Barrow and Conrad (2006) saw this panel as proof that public interest and environmental groups are seeking to tilt the playing field against industry. In fact, industry-funded scientists often play a dominant role on committees established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972).…”

“…And, as in the PFOA panel case, those with financial support from industry usually outnumber by a two-or three-to-one margin those whose writings suggest they may be sympathetic to environmental or consumer interests (CSPI, in press). Barrow and Conrad (2006) concluded that industry scientists should be allowed to serve on advisory panels because "they can provide unique knowledge and insight concerning the chemical in question." No doubt such scientists should be encouraged to present their data to a panel evaluating the health risks of a particular chemical.…”

“…Ironically, these same mechanisms have publicly revealed the often successful efforts by industry to weaken the regulation of their products. The current checks and balances cited by Barrow and Conrad (2006) are not always effective guards against biased or even bad science. Numerous examples of biased industry science have been reported in the scientific literature:…”