science

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to end "a six-year-old battle between career EPA scientists" who want to regulate a chemical linked to thyroid problems in pregnant women and children, and the White House and Pentagon, where officials oppose setting a drinking-water safety standard for the chemical, perchlorate. Guess who's likely to win? The EPA's "preliminary regulatory determination," obtained by the Washington Post, claims that setting a perchlorate drinking-water standard wouldn't result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems." The document was heavily edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Among the OMB's comments was "that there was 'no need'" to include "detailed data" that showed that "infants would be exposed to perchlorate levels above" levels deemed safe by the National Academy of Sciences. Perchlorate is present in rocket fuel; many contaminated water sources are near military bases. In an attempt to avoid costly clean-ups, defense companies formed the Perchlorate Study Group, which has questioned whether perchlorate in drinking water poses a health problem.

Public interest groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, are blasting the Food and Drug Administration for relying on industry-funded studies in evaluating the safety of bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in food packaging materials. The FDA's BPA draft assessment says the chemical is safe, ignoring numerous independent and government-funded studies which show risk of harm including brain and prostate damage to developing infants, fetuses, and children, as well as increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. Instead, the FDA relied on two studies funded by an arm of the American Chemistry Council, a trade organization representing chemical manufacturers. Employees of SABIC Innovative Plastics and Dow Chemical, which manufacture BPA, coauthored the two studies. The studies' lead author, Rochelle Tyl of Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina, previously worked for the chemical industry and received research funding from the plastics industry.

"The Ear and Hearing Journal has rebuked a Washington University researcher for failing to disclose that he was working as a paid expert for a siren manufacturer when he published a study saying firefighters weren't at risk for job-related hearing loss," reports David Armstrong. The study's author, William W. Clark of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, claimed that "no external funding was received for this study." In fact, Federal Signal Corp., which manufactures emergency equipment, helped conceptualize the study and acquired the original data for Clark, according to documents uncovered in a lawsuit filed by Chicago firefighters. The Center for Science in the Public Interest pointed out in 2006 that "Federal Signal lawyers paid Clark $9,300 in consulting fees while the study was underway and a $25,000 retainer for future testimony shortly after its publication."

Patrick Moore: What doesn't exist can hurt youSammy Wilson, the Northern Ireland Minister for Environment, is an avowed climate change skeptic who claims that "there is no conclusive evidence that greenhouse gases are a major cause of climate change." While Wilson's claims are at odds with the science, former Greenpeace activist turned corporate consultant Patrick Moore supported Wilson, claiming that there are scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who don't believe climate change is man-made, "but their views are ignored." However, as a consultant to the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a Nuclear Energy Institute front group, Moore recently argued for new nuclear power stations, because "the greatest threat to the earth" is "our addiction to fossil fuels and the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions they cause." Another Wilson supporter is Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and a former executive with the High Park Group (HPG), a Canadian PR firm.

From Pfizer's new Lipitor adPfizer's getting ready to resume advertising for its cholesterol drug Lipitor. In February, the drugmaker pulled its Lipitor ads, over charges they were misleading. The old ads featured artificial heart inventor Robert Jarvik, who appeared to be giving medical advice though he isn't a practicing physician. The new ads feature "John E.," a baby boomer and heart-attack survivor who "didn't take a cholesterol-fighting drug before his heart attack ... despite a history of high cholesterol." A Pfizer marketing executive said, "When we did testing with consumers ... John really resonated with them." But will the ad boost sales? According to a new study, the impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising on sales is "highly variable" and, for two of the three drugs studied, the ads "had no apparent impact." The study, which was published in the British Medical Journal, compared drug sales in French-speaking versus English-speaking Canadian provinces. Like most countries, Canada bans DTC ads, but Canadian viewers still see them via U.S. television. Advertising executives maintain that DTC ads do boost sales. "Had anyone ever heard of erectile dysfunction or overactive bladder before the drugs were advertised?" asked one.

Tobacco manufacturers discovered over 40 years ago that radioactive polonium-210 exists in cigarettes and tobacco smoke, and spent decades working to remove it, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health. The companies tried to remove polonium -- a naturally-occurring, alpha particle-emitting constituent of the fertilizers and soil used to grow tobacco -- by creating special filters, washing the tobacco leaf and genetically altering tobacco plants, but ultimately failed. Instead of coming clean, the companies kept their internal research on polonium and information about their unsuccessful efforts to remove it secret. They didn't want to heighten public awareness of polonium in cigarettes. Polonium-210 is the lethal radioactive substance that was used to poison Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

An analysis of Merck internal documents concluded that the pharmaceutical company carried out a clinical study of Vioxx in 1999, "primarily to support a marketing campaign before the drug's launch." Merck stated that the study was done "to test side effects of the painkiller Vioxx," which was pulled from the market in 2004, after being linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. The 1999 study compared Vioxx to the widely-used painkiller Naproxen, in order "to accelerate uptake and advocacy for Vioxx," according to the Merck documents, which were disclosed during litigation. Another document -- a nomination of the 1999 study for a marketing award -- said the study was "designed and executed in the spirit of Merck marketing principles." Carrying out clinical studies for marketing purposes "would raise ethical and scientific questions, from whether study participants were unknowingly -- and needlessly -- put in harm's way, to whether a company's research is reliable." Earlier analyses of Merck documents found evidence the company ghostwrote academic articles and minimized patient deaths in Vioxx trials. The authors of the Merck document analyses were paid consultants in Vioxx lawsuits against Merck.

Overexposure to manganese has caused Parkinson's-like symptoms for thousands of welders, but the makers of manganese-containing welding wire and electrodes are avoiding liability by manipulating science. Jim Morris writes that "the welding companies paid more than $12.5 million to 25 organizations and 33 researchers, virtually all of whom have published papers dismissing connections between welding fumes and workers' ailments. ... The pattern doesn't surprise George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, author of Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Corporate-funded research articles are often 'advocacy documents that are being produced purely for use in court cases,' he says. 'It's unfortunate, because it really pollutes the scientific literature.'" Industrial toxicologists have known since the 1930s that manganese exposure damages the brain and central nervous system. Morris notes that "if you were to graph out the welding industry's spending on science, you'd see a dramatic uptick in 2003 -- the year an Illinois jury awarded $1 million to a welder named Larry Elam." Since then, mounting lawsuits by injured welders have driven a funding boom for pro-industry scientists.

The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."

Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes.