Letter Banned From "SCIENCE MAGAZINE"
Letter Banned From "SCIENCE MAGAZINE"
http://www.***.com/
The following letter, which gives a good insight into how corporate science
works in the global arena behind closed doors, has been rejected from
Science magazine despite three requests for reconsideration from Dr. Samuel
Epstein. The issue at stake is democracy and the social control of science
and technology, which is all the more urgent, as technologies become more
powerful and uncontrollable. This is not the first time that magazines such
as Science, Nature and New Scientist have refused to give voice to
scientists dissenting from the corporate view, to which they give undue and
apparently unlimited access. Nature Biotechnology even published a long
article attempting to discredit a scientific review - on the potential
hazards of the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter (now published) - in the
worst style of gutter journalism, and only gave a very grudging right to
reply after a delay of three to four months. I have long cancelled my
personal subscriptions to these magazines, and I suggest others might
consider doing the same. We can have no confidence in the International
Academy Council being proposed, unless and until the composition of this
Council has gone through the necessary open democratic process. Scientists
like us have tried our best to engage the scientific community as well as
the general public in open debate. Some, like Dr. Arpad Puztai had lost his
job and bore the brunt of vilification from the scientific establishment. We
have all had our lives and work ruined, not the least of which by being
forced to read boring scientific papers and documents that we would never
have volunteered to read if we didn't think it was so important for the
public to be informed of what corporate science has in store for us. This is
what democracy is all about. We have repeatedly invited and challenged those
real scientists who disagree with us to debate the science in public and in
terms that the public can understand. They have turned us down again and
again. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, the President of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Bruce Alberts, and an unheralded
group of a dozen other presidents of national science academies, quietly
gathered behind the scenes to propose the creation of an International
Academy Council (IAC) as a global science advisory board. The object of the
IAC, expected to be formalized this month, is to provide "impartial
scientific advice" to governments and international organizations on issues
such as genetic engineering, threatened ecosystems, and biodiversity. While
most would agree with Alberts "that the world needs much more advice from
scientists," there are serious questions on reliance of advice from an
NAS-modeled IAC.
Through its huge think tank, the National Research Council (NRC) chaired by
Alberts with a full-time staff of 1000 and a $200 million budget, the NAS
conducts studies and prepares about 200 reports annually, largely under
contract to federal agencies. However, in flagrant violation of
governmental openness rules (the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act) which
Alberts still vehemently opposes, NRC committees and panels meet secretly in
closed sessions, fail to disclose their minutes and conflict of interest
statements, and fail to require that their membership reflects balanced
representation of divergent interests and viewpoints. Illustrative is the
conduct of the NRC committee on "Comparative Toxicity of Naturally Occurring
Carcinogens" which issued the 1996 report on "Carcinogens and
Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet." This report trivialized concerns on
cancer risks to infants and children from cooking.net">food contaminated with
carcinogenic pesticides, as these were alleged to "occur at levels far too
low to have any adverse effects on health." Acting on behalf of an ad hoc
coalition of about 100 leading independent experts in public health and
cancer prevention, and representatives of a wide range of labor and citizen
groups, one of us (SSE) warned Alberts that this committee was grossly
unbalanced and "disproportionately weighted with industry consultants;" it
should further be noted that no pediatrician was invited to serve.
Alberts responded admitting "that some of the committee members have
performed some consulting for industry," but dismissed these concerns as
"the same members have also advised or consulted for regulatory agencies."
Other concerns were expressed that the composition of the NRC Committee
could "be used to discredit or undermine" the previous NRC report on
"Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children," which explicitly warned
of cancer risks to children.
A more blatant conflict of interest is evidenced by the composition of the
March, 1999 NRC biotechnology panel with its disproportionate representation
of experts directly linked to the industry. This conflict was compounded by
the subsequent discovery of a revolving-door relationship between the
industry and NRC. Unknown to the panel, its executive director Dr. Michael
Phillips was secretly negotiating for a senior position in the Biotechnology
Industry Organization. He joined the industry some 3 months later.
As federal support is beginning to shrink, the NAS plans to increase funding
from non-federal sources, which currently account for some 15% of its
budget. The NAS is also planning to extend its influence to major national
policy concerns. However, characteristic of his penchant for secrecy,
Alberts has refused to release a pending report recommending reorganization
of NAS policies and procedures. Evaluation of global concerns, particularly
on public health and environmental integrity, should not be entrusted to a
non-transparent and unaccountable cabal of self-appointed experts, such as
the proposed IAC, whose views may reflect special interests rather than the
public. Instead, highly qualified independent scientists acceptable to or
working with non-governmental organizations (NGO's) should play a major role
in any international science advisory body. These include the recently
proposed World Academy of Science in Society, The Physicians and Scientists
for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), and the
group of some 300 "World Scientists."
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
2121 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, IL 60612
(312) 996-2297
Edward Goldsmith, M.A.
The Ecologist
46 The Vineyard, Richmond, Surrey, U.K.
(011) 44-181-332-6963
Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
The Open University
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, U.K.
(011) 44-1908-653-113
