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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosenstock, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rosenstock, L. Related Collections Ethics Health Policy Health Professionals Occupational Health

Linda Rosenstock, MD, MPH

Linda Rosenstock is with the School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Linda Rosenstock, MD, MPH, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, PO Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772 (e-mail: lindarosenstock{at}ph.ucla.edu).

Monforton's letter underscores a main tenet of our article, namely, that the prime motivation for vested interests' undermining science is to thwart the policy implications that may follow. As director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health during the time described, I can personally attest to the dual and seemingly contradictory strategy employed by a group of mine operators (Methane Awareness Resource Group). On the one hand, employ a battery of steps to block, in the Department of Health and Human Services, a sentinel diesel health effects study; on the other hand, attempt to block, in the Department of Labor, regulatory efforts to address diesel exposure. In both cases, the group cited too much scientific uncertainty and the need for more research.

The dual strategy was not a well kept secret but was quite visible, and, all the more disconcerting, remarkably effective. In fact, the very same congressional decisionmakers and their staffs—because the same committees had jurisdiction over both agencies—were lobbied on both sides of the issue (delay research and block regulation), often with success.

In addition to the other recommendations made in our article, this case study of diesel exhaust, which Monforton has aptly expanded on, demonstrates the need for a multifaceted response and reinforces one of our primary recommendations: "First, consider the context and the source of the attack. . . . [T]he economically and politically powerful can too easily compromise the use of good science."

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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosenstock, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rosenstock, L. Related Collections Ethics Health Policy Health Professionals Occupational Health