The following review of
Doubt is their product, a book by David Michaels, appears in
Briar Patch Books, Linda Brinson's " latter-day version of a newspaper book-review page." Thanks to Linda for editing it and publishing it in her blog, on which you will find many other interesting book reviews. Take a look!
- - - - - - -
DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT: HOW INDUSTRY’S ASSAULT ON
SCIENCE THREATENS YOUR HEALTH. By David Michaels. Oxford University
Press, 2008. 384 pages.
A review by Denis DuBay
Once
upon a time, seemingly in another galaxy far away, scientists received
nearly universal respect for their knowledge and skills, at least in
their chosen field. How rapidly things can change. Witness now a
leading climate scientist receiving a subpoena from a state attorney
general angry with his findings and being compared to a child molester
by a national magazine, and other climate scientists harassed for simply
doing their job.
David Michaels, a former chief safety officer for the nation’s
nuclear weapon’s facilities under the Clinton administration, helps make
some sense of this unbelievable turnabout in his 2008 book,
Doubt Is Their Product.
The title of the book came from the blunt statement of a cigarette
executive: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing
with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general
public.”
In the case of the tobacco industry, that body of fact considered
cigarette smoke to cause lung cancer and heart disease. The longer
industry leaders could create at least the semblance of controversy
about the hazards of tobacco, the more money they could make selling
tobacco. Here industry learned that “debating
science is much easier and more effective than debating the
policy.”
And the science is epidemiology, defined by Encarta World English
Dictionary as “… the scientific and medical study of the causes and
transmission of disease within a population.” Here is an entire field of
science that arose in part because one cannot ethically conduct an
experiment to test whether a substance causes cancer on real live human
beings. A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.
In order to determine whether certain substances or practices do harm
humans, scientists must either do the experiments on biologically
similar animals, or conduct elaborate correlational studies that need to
control for the host of extraneous variables such as age, gender and
occupation that can confound any results. Either of these two
alternatives, but especially the latter one, often involves elaborate
employment of, oh my, statistics.
In Chapter 6,
Tricks of the Trade: How Mercenary Scientists Mislead You,
Michaels describes all the ways a so-called “product defense scientist”
can use the complexities of epidemiology to deceive. A favorite
technique finds the affected industry kicking into high gear when a new
study comes out with unfavorable results. The industry demands the raw
data from the study, then sets its hired guns to work reanalyzing that
data. With a little massaging here and cherry-picking there to
“improve” the study, voila, the unfavorable results turn out to be a
mirage. Product goldfinger is safe after all. Of course it is.
The “product defense industry” takes its orders, and more important,
its money, from companies and industries with products to sell. Its
objective, as it appeared in a 1972 letter from a Tobacco Institute
staffer, “…creating doubt about the health charge without actually
denying it.” Industry does not have to win the science debate to win
the policy debate. It only has to generate a bit of confusion
surrounding the science.
We see Michaels’ passion for this story beginning on page ix when he
describes an especially offensive example of the model created by Big
Tobacco.
In 1980, 555 cases of Reye’s syndrome were reported, and one in three
children diagnosed died. Today, thanks to a public education campaign
and warning labels, nearly everyone is aware that children with a
flu-like illness should not take aspirin because it increases their risk
of developing Reye’s syndrome. But in 1980, few knew about the link.
Faced with convincing evidence, aspirin manufacturers nevertheless
delayed action alerting parents to the situation for several years,
claiming flaws in studies, and asserting that: “We
do know that
no medication has been
proven
to cause Reye’s.” Michaels points out that the italicized emphasis
appeared in industry’s original public service announcement!
And those italics are telling. Contrary to popular public
understanding, science rarely is able to say it has “proven” something
beyond the shadow of a doubt. Michaels describes the resulting delays
to regulatory action as waiting for the body count before exercising
precautions, the “bodies in the morgue” form of risk assessment.
In the case of aspirin and Reye’s syndrome, it was 1986 before a
lawsuit forced the Reagan Administration to act. As a result of the
education campaign and warning labels, there are few Reye’s syndrome
cases today, but no one knows how many children died in the early 1980s
as a result of the doubt manufactured by an industry eager to make more
money selling more aspirin.
Michaels tells many tales of doubt manufactured on behalf of
dangerous products whose industries followed the lead of Big Tobacco,
including benzene, asbestos, lead, mercury, aromatic amines, diacetyl,
beryllium, vinyl chloride, and among others, the drugs
phenylpropanolamine (PPA), and Vioxx.
The value to industry of creating doubt resides in the common
misperception that absolute and direct proof is the gold standard in
science. In fact, science proceeds based on the weight of the available
evidence. When that weight is balanced between two opposing
viewpoints, further study is required. However, when the preponderance
of the evidence comes down on one side of the argument, science accepts
the conclusion and moves ahead. Further data will likely strengthen the
case, and perhaps modify it slightly, but will not often overturn it.
Reading that someone demands “proof” of a connection between a
product and potential danger should set off alarms that here stirs a
product defense advocate wishing to sow confusion and inject delay into
the regulatory process.
And if that industry reanalysis is criticized for not appearing in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal, no problem, the product defense
industry has “captured” journals ready to provide that peer-review
imprimatur! Michaels suggests viewing with some caution articles found
in certain publications, for example,
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,
Indoor and Built Environment, and the
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
What can be done about these illegitimate tactics that threaten
public and environmental health? Michaels suggests keeping an eye on
the “funding effect.” Follow the money, discover who paid for the
research, and you can predict the results with amazing accuracy.
Michaels’ solution: eliminate conflicts of interest. Today’s mantra
says manage conflicts of interest, so as not to remove too many
qualified experts from contributing to an important process. Michaels
would have none of it. If it looks like a duck, eliminate it. Managing
conflicts of interest rather than eliminating them simply ensures that
the funding effect will continue to work.
So what of the relative lack of respect accorded to scientists today,
especially those on the front lines of well-known issues such as
climate change? How might David Michaels’ book explain this? Consider
that for over three decades the public has been treated to special
interests trotting out their captured scientists every time a bottom
line is threatened. Of course one’s view of the objectivity of
scientists, and even of science as a way of knowing, would tarnish.