| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Attacks on science: more than you know
|
|
|||
|
Celeste A Monforton, Former special assistant to Asst. Secretary of Labor Davitt McAteer Current student at George Washington University
Send letter to journal:
cmonforton{at}yahoo.com Celeste A Monforton
|
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 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 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 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) was engaged in rulemaking to protect underground miners, the most heavily- exposed workers, from diesel particulate matter (dpm.)(2) In writing and at public hearings before DOL officials, MARG expressed its support for the epidemiological study. The group indicated that it was “…participating cooperatively with government researchers;” (3) and that it “…endorsed the study.”(4) At times, MARG extolled the study’s value, noting that it “…has the potential to fill in many knowledge gaps…”(5) 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 NIOSH/NCI 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.” (6,7) The coalition, however, was actually engaged in inventive legal maneuvers against HHS to thwart the epidemiological research. Through its separate interactions with the two agencies, the coalition successfully characterized itself as an active participant and advocate for the study, at the same time they amassed a written record of opposition to it. Ultimately, this was a new twist to a tried-and-true strategy: oppose protective regulations by arguing for better science, and obstruct the research which 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. (2)Mine Safety and Health Administration, Federal Register, April 9, 1998. (3)Rowdy Heiser, FMC Corp. and MARG Diesel Coalition, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 17, 1998. (4)Kent Adamson, CIH, CSP, Solvay Minerals Corp. and MARG Diesel Coalition, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 11, 1999. (5)Wes Ing, ASARCO, Inc., chairman of the National Mining Association metal/nonmetal diesel task group, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 11, 1999 (6)Christopher Pritchard, Tg Soda Ash, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, May 11, 1999 (7)Final Risk Assessment for Diesel Particulate Matter, U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 13, January 19, 2001, 5560-5667. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
eLetters: