1.Leading scientists shield links to industry support in published papers
2.An Environmentally disastrous company
The paper referred to in item 1 is Hardell, L, MJ Walker, B Walhjalt, LS Friedman and ED Richter, 2006, Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, in press.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113451325/ABSTRACT
EXTRACT FROM ITEM 1: According to the findings of Hardell et al.'s research, Doll had a long term financial relationship with Monsanto between 1970 and 1990. Hardell et al. describe a letter [from] a Monsanto epidemiologist renewing Doll's contract for GBP1000 per day from Monsanto...
---
1.Leading scientists shield links to industry support in published papers OurStolenFuture, 8 November 2006 http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Industry/2006/2006-1103hardelletal.html
Swedish researchers report that Sir Richard Doll, co-author of a famous paper minimizing the role of chemicals in causing cancer, failed to disclose his industry funding for work on vinyl chloride, dioxin and phenoxy herbicides in papers published that were relevant to industry interests.
An analysis of peer-reviewed documents and other sources reveals that scientists paid by the tobacco industry are not the only scientists who regularly fail to to reveal their funding links to industry when they publish studies. The most striking case is that of Sir Richard Doll, co-author (with Richard Peto) of one of the most influential papers in cancer epidemiology, one that concluded that only a small percentage of cancer was caused by environmental exposures.
According to the findings of Hardell et al.'s research, Doll had a long term financial relationship with Monsanto between 1970 and 1990. Hardell et al. describe a letter a Monsanto epidemiologist renewing Doll's contract for GBP1000 per day from Monsanto, which Doll had deposited in 2002 in a library at the Wellcome Trust. The Doll and Peto paper was published in 1981. Additional documents, according to Hardell et al., reveal that Doll and an industry medical advisor agreed to have any articles written by Doll reviewed by Peto and the medical advisors of two chemical companies. Doll's work for Monsanto included reviews of the cancer risks of vinyl chloride, dioxin and phenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T). The vinyl chloride work led to a peer-reviewed paper published in 1988 in a Scandinavian journal reporting that vinyl chloride was not a significant carcinogen other than in the liver.
According to Hardell et al., Doll's analysis became the gold standard on vinyl chloride toxicity, including being cited by the American Chemical Council (2001) as showing no link between vinyl chloride and brain cancer.
Hardell et al. report finding additional documentation of Doll's relationships with companies and trade associations in the Welcomme Trust library. For example, in the 1988 paper, Doll did not disclose receiving £15,000 plus expenses from the Chemical Manufacturer's Association and the chemical companies ICI and Dow (two large producers of vinyl chloride), a payment documented by papers reviewed by Hardell et al. They also report that Doll was receiving additional payment at the same time from Monsanto, another large producer of vinyl chloride.
Hardell et al. also note that Doll, in a private unsolicited letter to the chair of an Australian Royal Commission reviewing the safety of dioxin and phenoxy herbicides wrote that "there is no reason to suppose they are carcinogenic in laboratory animals." His letter went further to challenge the veracity of peer-reviewed published research by Hardell and colleagues on the carcinogenicity of phenoxy herbicides: "In my opinion, his [Hardell's] work should no longer be cited as scientific evidence." The Commission's final report included, according to Hardell et al., "an almost verbatim account of a Monsanto submission on this issue."
Hardell et al. describe other additional examples of researchers failing to disclose financial ties to industries with vested interests in the outcome of their peer-reviewed studies. For example:
Swedish professor Ragnar Rylander worked for decades as a consultant to Philip Morris, failing to disclose this tie to his employer while, at the same time, discussing "all his tobacco related research at the universities with Philip Morris and their lawyers." While he initially denied the consultancies when it was first revealed in 2002, Rylander's contract has been made public in the Philip Morris Archives.
Scientists were hired by the product-defense firm Exponent to argue that dioxins are not associated with cancer in people. They made presentations at public meetings casting doubt on the chemical's impact, and wrote peer reviewed articles with the same conclusion, without revealing their industry ties. According to Hardell et al., the vice president of Exponent, Dennis Paustenbach, was on the EPA's science advisory board at the time, but was also conducting research for Dow Chemical on dioxin in soils around its chemical facility in Midland, Michigan. Paustenbach has since been associated with other efforts to distort science, particularly hexavalent chromium, including in articles in the Wall Street Journal.
Hardell et al. conclude their review by calling for strict development and application of policies on disclosing conflicts of interest. As they observe, "financial relationships between industry, researchers and academic institutions are becoming increasingly common." While funding from industry "should be a good thing," according to Hardell et al., "the few examples we give show that it invites abuse when it is secret, concealed, disguised or non-disclosed, and as other research suggests, these examples are not isolated." They are especially troubling because "they involved some of the world's leading epidemiologists."
---
2.An Environmentally disastrous company*
Martin J Walker http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem/contri/walker.htm
Monsanto's list of difficulties with the EPA and other US regulation agencies as well as other companies is a sordid corporate tale. Monsanto has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as 'potentially responsible' for no fewer than ninety-three contaminated U.S. sites under Superfund law.
In 1986, Monsanto was found guilty of negligently exposing a worker to benzene at its Chocolate Bayou Plant in Texas. It was forced to pay $100 million to the family of Wilbur Jack Skeen, a worker who died of leukaemia after repeated exposures.
In 1991, Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut. In 1993, the Food and Drug Administration approved Posilac, bovine somatropin (BST), despite constant alarms that it is a carcinogen. In 1995, Monsanto was sued after allegedly supplying radioactive material for a controversial study which involved feeding radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women. Also in 1995, the company was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas after criticism over hazardous waste dumping.
In 1997, The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste, containing cadmium, believed to cause cancer, kidney disease, neurological dysfunction and birth defects, to Idaho fertiliser companies. In 1969, Monsanto began producing the Lasso herbicide, known as Agent Orange, and in 1987 it was one of the companies named in a $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to the herbicide. Monsanto produced Cycle-Safe, the world’s first plastic soft-drink bottle. The bottle, suspected of posing a cancer risk, was banned the following year by the Food and Drug Administration.
Monsanto’s closeness to government and its lavish outlay on politics and campaigning have helped the company maintain a constant battle against regulation. In 1986 it spent $50,000 to combat California's anti-toxics initiative, Proposition 65. The initiative was to prohibit the discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects into drinking water supplies.
In 1990, Monsanto spent more than $405,000 to defeat California’s pesticide regulation Proposition 128, known as the Big Green initiative. The initiative was aimed at phasing out the use of pesticides, including Monsanto's product alachlor, linked to cancer and global warming.
* extract from Sir Richard Doll: Death, Dioxin and PVC
---
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." - The Lancet
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive
|
