NEWS
Dec 12, 2002A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty
In an article for the Swedish journal Medikament, November 2002 I told about an example of a privileged lane in the peer review system. The consultancy firm Exponent, Inc. submitted a review, Dioxin and Cancer, to the EPA in the autumn 2000. The review was produced for some of Exponent's client(s). The conclusion of the review was that dioxin is not a human carcinogen. Authors were Hans-Olov Adami, Philip Cole, Jack Mandel(Chair), Harris Pastides, Thomas B. Starr, and Dimitrios Trichopoulos. Later this review was edited to pass as an article to be published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, and it was submitted.
The editor of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology asked for suggestions on whom to choose as reviewer. Adami suggested Paolo Boffetta at IARC. However, Boffetta was at the time, and still is, an adjunct professor at Adami's department at the Karolinska Institute (KI). There Boffetta runs a project funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. Maybe it's not unusual that an editor asks for suggestions on whom to choose as a peer reviewer. One would expect a suggestion of someone in a position to make an unbiased review. Adami's suggestion clearly is in favour of a biased review. This I called "a privileged lane".
When the article was published Boffetta's position as adjunct professor was not an information easily retrievable from KI, nor was there any information on his project. Recently the department's website was overhauled, and now the proper information is out and open. Two years after it started.
In December 2001 an article was published in a Swedish daily on Adami's ties to the chemical industry [1]. The plan to have the review published also as an article was described. Probably this led to changed plans. The article has neither been published, nor announced, in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. However another article on the same subject is announced. This article is authored by Dennis Paustenbach, Corporate Vice President of Exponent, Inc. [2]. He was member of the SAB recieving the review Dioxin and Cancer.
The scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology was recently noted for its bias towards industry interests. It is the official journal of International Society for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, an organization of industrial players. A press release from Integrity in Science tells about a letter to Academic Press and Elsevier - owner of Academic Press - on the lack of scientific integrity in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. A large part of the editorial board and an editor have financial ties to industries whose products are subject to studies published in the journal.
As an example in the press release it's told that the editor Gio Batta Gori was paid 30.000 dollars to write an article then published in the journal. Gori is not only editor of the journal, he is also on the board of International Society for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Gori and Gary Flamm were also paid to sign articles written by others [3]. Flamm is member of the journal's editorial board. Both Gori and Flamm were considered "key consultants" by the Tobacco Institute [4].
To knit the present and past together: Dennis Paustenbach is member of the journal's editorial board. Why is this specializing in industrial biasing something to worry about?
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has not a very high impact factor compared to journals like Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, British Journal of Medicine and JAMA. However, when it comes to regulatory matters like harmonization of risk evaluation procedures, a process which is on its way to be finalized in the European Union, the situation is reversed. In the EU papers you will find it very hard to find references to scientific journals with a high impact factor, while you will find citatations en masse from Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology [5]. Industry knows where to put the money and efforts. Do scientists when it comes to the use of the knowledge stemming from the scientific community?
Bo Walhjalt
Notes
1. Lars Söderberg: Nobelprofessor hyrs av kemijätte, Aftonbladet 17/12, 2001 and Lars Söderberg: “Att få betalt för arbete ser jag inte som något kontroversiellt”. Aftonbladet, 17/12, 2001.
2. See http://www.isrtp.org/nonmembers/manuscript.html
3. David Hanners: Scientists were paid to write letters: Tobacco industry sought to discredit EPA report. St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 4, 1998.
4. TI, Tobacco Inst; Stuntz, S.M. [No title]. 22 Jun 1992. Bates: 2026092045-2026092047. On TDO: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2026092045-2047.html.
5. FIRST REPORT ON THE HARMONISATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. PART 1: The Report of the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health 26-27 October 2000 (published on the internet 20.12.2000)
and
FIRST REPORT ON THE HARMONISATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. PART 2: APPENDICES 26-27 October 2000 (published on the internet on 20.12.2000)
On Reality. Publisher and editor: Bo Walhjalt. ISSN 1650-9323.
© Bo Walhjalt and authors. | Comments on this page
Latest update 2002-12-12url of this page: http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bwf/eng/news/2002_12/indBias.html