HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Monforton, C. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Monforton, C. A. Related Collections Ethics Health Policy Health Professionals Occupational Health

Celeste A. Monforton

The author was with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor, Washington, DC, from 1991 to 2001.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Celeste A. Monforton, 14503 Four Chimney Dr, Centreville, VA 20120 (e-mail: cmonforton{at}yahoo.com)

I applaud Rosenstock and Lee for their article "Attacks on Science: The Risk to Evidence-Based Policy."¹ The authors describe tactics used by a variety of interests to undermine public health initiatives and suggest that the scientific community understand these threats and devise institutional responses to them. They illustrate the need for action by recounting the measures used by an industry group to delay the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and National Cancer Institute (NIOSH–NCI) epidemiological study of diesel exhaust. A lesser-known aspect of this story exposes the mining industry group's duplicity and intensifies the call for a public health response.

While the US Department of Health and Human Services was engaged in its legal battle with the Methane Awareness Resource Group (MARG), another cabinet-level agency was hearing a much different tale from this industry coalition. The US Department of Labor (DOL) was engaged in rulemaking to protect underground miners, the most heavily exposed workers, from diesel particulate matter.^2,3 In writing and at public hearings before DOL officials, MARG expressed its support for the NIOSH–NCI study. The group indicated that it was "participating cooperatively with government researchers"⁴ and that it "endorsed the study."⁵ At times, mining industry executives extolled the study's value, noting that it "has the potential to fill in many knowledge gaps."⁶ MARG's statements to DOL officials suggested that the group eagerly awaited the study's results.

In reality, the opposite was true. The coalition worked to block the workplace standards by pressuring the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of the study. Industry representatives argued that a delay in the new rules was necessary because the science was incomplete. One testified that the study would "offer definitive data on the actual mining population . . . not a biased view of various academic studies."⁷

The coalition, however, was actually engaged in inventive legal maneuvers against the Department of Health and Human Services to thwart the epidemiological research. Through its separate interactions with the 2 agencies (NIOSH and DOL), MARG successfully characterized itself as an active participant in and advocate for the study, at the same time that it was amassing a written record of opposition to the study. Ultimately, this was a new twist to a tried-and-true strategy: oppose protective regulations by arguing for better science, and obstruct the research that would enhance scientific understanding and improve evidence-based policy. Such blatant attacks on science will not be addressed by government agencies. The public health community must answer the call.

References

1. Rosenstock L, Lee LJ. Attacks on science: the risk to evidence-based policy. Am J Public Health.2002:92:14–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Proposed rule on diesel particulate matter exposure of underground coal miners, US Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. Federal Register.April 9, 1998;63:17492–17579.

3. Final risk assessment for diesel particulate matter, US Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. Federal Register. January 19, 2001;66:5560–5667.

4. Public Hearing Before the Mine Safety and Health Administration (November 17, 1998) (testimony of Rowdy Heiser, representing the FMC Corp and MARG Diesel Coalition).

5. Public Hearing Before the Mine Safety and Health Administration (May 11, 1999) (testimony of Kent Adamson, CIH, CSP, representing the Solvay Minerals Corp and MARG Diesel Coalition).

6. Public Hearing Before the Mine Safety and Health Administration (May 11, 1999) (testimony of Wes Ing, chairman of the National Mining Association's Metal and Nonmetal Mine Diesel Task Group).

7. Public Hearing Before the Mine Safety and Health Administration (May 11, 1999) (testimony of Christopher Pritchard, representing Tg Soda Ash Inc).

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Burke, S. A. Sarpy, K. Smith-Crowe, S. Chan-Serafin, R. O. Salvador, and G. Islam Relative Effectiveness of Worker Safety and Health Training Methods Am J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 96(2): 315 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Monforton, C. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Monforton, C. A. Related Collections Ethics Health Policy Health Professionals Occupational Health