First page

Articles & documents from before (and later)

Greenwashing Allegations. A presentation of "scientific greenwashing", and the case of Hans-Olof Adami.

When a suspected killer is brought to court, a jury consisting of the defendant's relatives would not be accepted, nor would a jury of relatives of the victim. The jury would in either case be partial. Now, one could imagine a case where a jury member is an unknown relative to the suspected killer, and that this jury member does not tell about the relationship. Then we have a case of undisclosed ties of interest. Of course this holds also for the opposite, an unknown and undisclosed relative of the victim.

The lawyer defending the suspected killer is expected to, and paid to, act in the interest of the defendant. Any kind of ties between the defense and the judge are considered inappropriate and are of course forbidden by law.

When a scientist appears talking or writing in advantage of a vested interest, like the tobacco industry, he/she can do so either as an independent scientist with no ties to the industry, or on behalf of that industry because of an employment or consultancy relation. Sometimes scientists appear on behalf of vested interests as independent, while they are on the pay roll. Then they have an undisclosed tie to one part in the manner prohibited in legal processes.

A relationship means risk for partiality, or bias. When scientists' hidden ties are disclosed, and the subject is health and/or environmental risks, they may be called greenwashers. They hide their interest in order to gain credibility. Thereby they deceive the public at the same time as they increase their market value as consultants. While hidden ties are against the law in legal processes, they are against ethic rules in science. However, it is an important asset in lobbying, legal procedures, and political activities as well as it is an important tool to the PR industry's spinning of opinions.

If the greenwashing concept is generalized with regard to health and environmental science, you may say that those who hide a relation to a vested interest of any kind and appear as independent: he/she is a greenwasher. The public interest in science is unbiased information as far as possible. Being deceptive about vested interests is a violation of public interest.

The public interest of nonpartial scientific information is a prime concern in order to balance conflicts between vested interests. Scientific partiality is in conflict with establishing this balance. Any other use of science in conflicts of interest is abuse of science. When it comes to public health and environment the public interest of precaution is at stake with corporate interests of a reversed precaution concerning budgets and markets. The public interest is concerned with human conditions, corporate interests are not. Corporate officers are paid to watch investors' invested value, nothing else. Other considerations are counterproductive to what they are paid to do.

Acting in support of a vested interest should raise the issue of bias. A disclosed greenwashing relationship strengthens the suspicions of actual bias, but is in itself not a proof of bias.

A fundamental problem is the increasing academic dependence on corporate funding for science to proceed. Corporate funding is only made in support of corporate interests. If there is no promise of payback, there is no funding. The increasing dependence on markets is a threat to independent research. The integrity of science is at stake.

In this sense the greenwashing concept was introduced to a Swedish audience the past autumn (2002) [1-7, all in Swedish]. To illustrate a behavior you need examples. To illustrate greenwashing you need to expose greenwashers. Greenwashers are examples illustrating the greenwashing phenomena.

The prime example of a Swedish greenwasher used is Hans-Olov Adami, professor and head of the Department of Medical Epidemiology at Karolinska Institute [1]. The allegations assigning him the role as a scientific greenwasher, and as such possibly a source of biased scientific information, have circulated for some time in English. There is need to clarify precisely what the allegations are, and what it is that forms the basis for these allegations.

At the center is the consultancy firm Exponent, Inc. and its Group Vice President Jack Mandel, acting on behalf of some of Exponent's clients. The prime sources for the disclosures are the e-mail correspondence between Jack Mandel and Hans-Olov Adami, Adami's account of his external assignments, open sources via the Internet, and interviews with a few people (mostly questions via e-mail).

Exponent, Inc. has delivered two reviews to the EPA on dioxin, both giving a "no risk" -label for dioxin. Dennis Paustenbach, Corporate Vice President of Exponent, was consultant to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Dioxin Reassessment Review Committee. This means he was a participant in the SAB review process. One review, Dioxin and Cancer, was authored by Hans-Olov Adami, Philip Cole, Jack Mandel (Chair), Harris Pastides, Thomas B. Starr, and Dimitrios Trichopoulos. Adami, Cole, Pastides, and Trichopoulos appear as independent scientists. In the other review, Dioxin and Immunologic and Neurologic Effects and Diabetes, authored by James Albers, Philip Cole, Jack Mandel, Harris Pastides, Thomas Starr, and Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Adami was acknowledged for his contributions.

Obviously the client(s) were satisfied with these reviews, because Mandel reports that the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) wanted another review on dioxin with respect to the issue of endocrine disruption. Mandel asked for Adami's participation. The CCC has a militant defense of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds as nontoxic compounds. Militant refers to a consistent denial of any harmful effects, a denial the industry has nurtured as long as can be remembered. Adami has said repeatedly, that there are no cancer risks related to chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds [8, 9 - both in Swedish]. He seems to be a safe bet as an independent scientist.

One of Exponent's clients wanted to have the industrial view presented at a conference, Dioxin 2001, in Korea. Jack Mandel was the middle hand administrating the participation of himself, Adami and Trichopoulos. Also he coordinated their performances. Adami and Trichopoulos participated as independent scientists. The client had value for the money. Three different presentations, appearing as independent from each other, while they were coordinated, and two from independent researchers seemingly not only from different departments, but also from different countries and continents.

After the visit Mandel suggested that the review Dioxin and Cancer should be edited into a format suitable for publication in a scientific journal. Adami and the other authors accepted, and the article was submitted to Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. There a "privileged lane" through the peer review process occurred, and Adami had a good idea on whom to choose as peer reviewer. Dennis Paustenbach is found on the editorial board of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. A full account of this is published as a news item on this Web site.

Adami's involvment with Exponent, Inc., and the review Dioxin and Cancer, as well as his journey to Korea was reported in a Swedish daily, December 2001, together with an interview [10]. During the year that has passed since this first disclosure other greenwashing material has been published regarding hidden ties to industry for both the tobacco industry and the chemical industry. Disclosure upon disclosure. Disclosures have been met with silence and silence again. On the 11th of December 2002 Läkartidningen (journal of the Swedish Medical Society) finally entered the scene with two articles shooting at the messenger and talking about something else [11, 12]. December 12, the association of Swedish medical journalists had a meeting with Hans-Olov Adami as guest: "What actually happened Hans-Olof?" [13]. This is the Swedish version of openness.

In an interview Adami has said that all of his external work was made in his role as adjunct professor at Harvard Medical School of Public Health. In the review Dioxin and Cancer, and for his presentation in Korea, his affiliation was given as that at KI. In both cases this meant that Adami had his academic home at KI, and Trichopoulos had his academic home at Harvard. Now, Adami is an adjunct professor at Harvard, and Trichopoulos is an adjunct professor at KI. The affiliations were played as cards in the PR game to serve the client's interest. Remember that all Adami's external assignments are said to belong to his work at Harvard.

There is more to know, and to be reported, but this is what has been reported so far.

Adami has responded by pointing out the importance of industrial resources for academic research, and therefore the need of working close together [9]. Also, he says, that he is convinced that industry is interested in truth even when it goes against profits in the short run, because of the risk for penalties if risk is later revealed. Also he wants to protect the public from unnecessary health scares by only making scientific certainties public. The last statement is compatible with the idea of risk denial until scientific certainty of damage is at hand. This is what industry wants, but denial until scientific proof is at hand is incompatible with the precautionary principle. Industry has an interest in, and will pay for, that truth which keeps uncertainty high enough to keep regulations away.

The main issue is hidden ties. Although the rules in Sweden state that external assignments shall be reported, Adami sees no reason to do so. He has had a lot of time to disclose his ties to industry, but he has consistently declined from doing so. In his response Adami talks about the necessity of the scientific community's interaction with industry. He looks upon the disclosures of his hidden ties to industry made the last year as a critisism of such interaction.

If Adami's idea of interaction between the scientific community and industry with hidden ties was applied in the legal system, then lawful disqualification would change meaning from ruling out to ruling in. Interaction with parties with special interests require openness and transparency to be kept in control. Therefore openness and transparency constitutes a fundamental public interest.

 

Bo Walhjalt

 

---

Notes:

1. Walhjalt B: [Greenwashing - an introduction]. Medikament 6/2002.

2. Zachrisson B: [The examination must not stop at the tobacco industry]. Medikament 6/2002
The editor-in-chief tells why he is publishing the articles on greenwashing.

3. Walhjalt B: [The privileged lane through the peer review system - a part of greenwashing anatomy]. Medikament 7/2002 - References.
About the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Exponent and Hans-Olov Adami

4. Walhjalt B: [Greenwashing anatomy and practice - three recent examples illustrate the pathology]. Medikament 7/2002. - References.

5. Hardell L: [From Hormoslyr to cell phones]. Medikament 7/2002.
A history of greenwashing from the 70's till now. "Hormoslyr" is the commercial equivalent to Agent Orange sold in Sweden until prohibited.

6. Walhjalt B: [Defamation methodology - with anonymity as a weapon]. Medikament 8/2002.
About a defamation process including an ordered review, request of a report with allegations, and an anonymous letter. Collected and coordinated by the head of the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. The anonymous letter was addressed to Adami, and he forwarded copies to others. The letter is not registered as incoming, just as outgoing. When the ordered review was published, the rest of the material was spread to a major Swedish daily...

7. Walhjalt B: [[The smoke screen covering tobacco money at KI - Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg, Philip Morris, and the Swedish Cancer Society]. Medikament 8/2002.
On a hidden project funded by Philip Morris and an overlapping project funded by the Swedish Cancer Society.

8. Ingelman-Sundberg M, Adami H-O, Ekbom A, Håkansson H: ["Publish only broadly accepted research findings"]. Dagens Nyheter, April 15, 2001.

9. Adami H-O: [Save people from uncritical alarms]. Dagens Forskning 20/2002.

10. Söderberg L: [Nobel professor hired by chemical giant]. Aftonbladet, 17/12 2001; and Söderberg L: ["Getting paid for work is not controversial"]. Aftonbladet, 17/12, 2001

11. Milerad J: [What should a medical journal offer - facts or sponsored entertainment?]. Läkartidningen 50/2002

12. Nyrén O: [Whom should you trust? On journalists assignments and agendas]. Läkartidningen 50/2002

13. Title from the announcement.