{"id":2482,"date":"2012-12-07T07:38:55","date_gmt":"2012-12-07T12:38:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=2482"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:26","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:26","slug":"scientists-push-back-against-a-bill-that-would-pervert-the-whole-concept-of-conflict-of-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2012\/12\/07\/scientists-push-back-against-a-bill-that-would-pervert-the-whole-concept-of-conflict-of-interest\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientists push back against a bill that would pervert the whole concept of conflict of interest"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>, is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

This week, two letters \u2013 one signed by <\/span>13 prominent public health scientists<\/span><\/a> and the other signed by the <\/span>heads of 8 major national environmental organizations<\/span><\/a> \u2013 were sent to the House Science Committee voicing strong opposition to H.R. 6564, <\/span>the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2012<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The sponsors of this legislation <\/span>claim<\/span><\/a> that it is needed to \u201cenhance transparency and limit conflicts of interest\u201d on the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its panels. \u00a0In fact, it would do the precise opposite.\u00a0 Here\u2019s how the scientists\u2019 letter summarizes the impacts that would arise from passage of the bill:\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis proposed legislation would only serve to reverse progress in bringing the best scientific advice and analysis to EPA.\u00a0 The consequence would be to deprive EPA of needed scientific advice on the most complex and pressing environmental health problems of our day.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Among the most perverse provisions of this bill (and there are many) are two that would turn the very notion of conflict of interest on its head.\u00a0 One would limit scientists that receive competitive grants through EPA\u2019s extramural research program from serving on the SAB or its panels \u2013 claiming that such funding constitutes a conflict of interest.\u00a0 The scientists\u2019 letter goes directly at that provision:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe underlying idea that scientists who obtain funding from EPA for any project have conflicts about all EPA matters is baseless and reflects a misunderstanding of who we are as scientists and our role in society.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Another provision is even more perverse:\u00a0 It would reverse longstanding conflict-of-interest policy and practice followed by virtually every authoritative scientific body in the world \u2013 including the National Academy of Sciences, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization \u2013 by allowing unfettered access of industry representatives with direct conflicts of interest to serve on the SAB and its panels, as long as their conflicts are disclosed.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Who\u2019s behind this radical legislation?\u00a0 Here\u2019s a hint:\u00a0 The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the chemical manufacturing industry, couldn\u2019t wait to express its unequivocal support, stating it \u201ccannot overstate the importance of this bill to Americans\u201d in <\/span>a press release<\/span><\/a> titled \u201cHouse Science Committee Proposes Common Sense Reform To EPA Scientific Advisory Process:\u00a0 Proposed Legislation Would Improve Expert Panel Selection, Limit Conflicts of Interest and Enhance Systematic Reviews<\/em><\/span><\/span>.\u201d\u00a0 And ACC\u2019s been singing the bill\u2019s praises all over town ever since (see, e.g., slide 6 of <\/span>this ACC presentation<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Another provision of the bill, vigorously backed by ACC, would require that every hazard and risk assessment conducted by EPA undergo SAB review \u2013 a massive expansion in the scope of the work of the SAB, which is intended to serve as a source of scientific advice to the Agency on its most important activities and pressing matters.\u00a0 This provision, ACC knows full well, would add years to the already overly protracted process of EPA\u2019s completion of such assessments; it\u2019s <\/span>a tactic ACC is also seeking to employ in its ongoing efforts to tie up EPA\u2019s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program<\/span><\/a>, by demanding that all IRIS assessments undergo not one but two rounds of peer review by the National Academy of Sciences.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The bill would also act on another ACC demand:\u00a0 It would require a written response by the SAB to all \u201cpublic\u201d comments received and offer endless opportunities for such input \u2013 which will skew even further the ability of industry to influence the process and outcome of SAB reviews.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These delay-game tactics are especially galling, given that ACC claims<\/em> to be all for EPA\u2019s ability to promptly implement risk assessment-based safety determinations \u2013 indeed, its \u201c<\/span>10 Principles for Modernizing TSCA<\/span><\/a>\u201d specially state that \u201cEPA should act expeditiously and efficiently in making safe use determinations\u201d and \u201cshould complete safe use determinations within set timeframes.\u201d \u00a0ACC simply can\u2019t have it both ways.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

False claims of support<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Press releases issued by both <\/span>the sponsors of the legislation<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>ACC<\/span><\/a> claim that two recent reports, one by the <\/span>Bipartisan Policy Committee (BPC)<\/span><\/a> and the other by the <\/span>Keystone Center\u2019s Research Integrity Roundtable<\/span><\/a>, provide support for their effort to allow conflicted industry scientists to serve on SAB panels even as they seek to exclude government-funded independent scientists.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These reports said nothing of the sort.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For example, the BPC report \u2013which was co-authored by one of the scientists signing this week\u2019s scientists letter opposing the bill \u2013 came, if anything, to the opposite conclusion, recommending that service as peer reviewers by academic scientists receiving federal dollars be strongly encouraged: \u00a0\u201cThe government could also encourage or require universities that receive federal grants to demonstrate that they were creating incentives for their faculty to participate as peer reviewers.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Both reports also forcefully argued that those with financial conflicts of interest should be excluded from serving as peer reviewers in all but the most exceptional circumstances:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

BPC<\/span>:\u00a0 \u201cThe desired norm for federal agencies should be to appoint advisory committees whose members are free of conflicts of interest. \u2026 The standard for allowing someone with a conflict of interest to serve on an advisory committee should be changed to the clearer and arguably more stringent policy of the National Academy of Sciences under which a conflicted expert can serve only in a situation where having a conflicted panel member is \u2018unavoidable.\u2019 \u2026\u00a0 Appointment of an individual with a conflict of interest should require a formal waiver from the appointing official. \u2026 Agencies should not appoint anyone with a conflict to serve as the chair or co-chair of a committee. \u00a0And agencies should limit the issuance of conflict waivers.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keystone<\/span>:\u00a0 \u201cThe goal of agencies should be to appoint only panelists who do not have conflicts of interest. \u2026 Waivers should be cautiously and carefully issued, and be the rare exception, not the norm.\u00a0 As in the BPC report, the Roundtable suggests that the federal standard be changed to reflect the National Academy of Sciences\u2019 standard which states that a conflicted expert can serve only if it is \u201cunavoidable\u201d to have a conflicted panel member. \u2026 Panelists with waivers should not be allowed to serve as panel chairs or in other leadership capacities (such as subcommittee chairs).\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This bald effort at deception by the bill sponsors and ACC was so egregious that it led the members of the Keystone Center\u2019s Roundtable to send the House Science Committee <\/span>its own letter<\/span><\/a> disavowing that its report provides any support whatsoever for the bill\u2019s provisions that would allow conflicted industry scientists to serve on SAB panels while limiting service by government-funded independent scientists.\u00a0 A remarkable step toward correcting the record, especially considering that an ACC Senior Director was on the Roundtable and presumably agreed to send the letter.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This sad episode makes clear that the parallel universe that the bill\u2019s sponsors and ACC live in \u2013 or seek to create \u2013 is not one that anyone who cares a whit about sound science, transparency and public health should ever want to encounter.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For more details and perspective on this concerning legislation, see NRDC’s Jennifer Sass’s very informative blog post<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. This week, two letters \u2013 one signed by 13 prominent public health scientists and the other signed by the heads of 8 major national environmental organizations \u2013 were sent to the House Science Committee voicing strong opposition to H.R. 6564, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,56093,114108],"tags":[39150,39990,5021,39160,5017],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-industry-influence","category-tsca","tag-american-chemistry-council","tag-conflict-of-interest","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-national-academy-of-sciences-nas","tag-risk-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2482"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2482\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12671,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2482\/revisions\/12671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2482"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}