Unfortunately, there are reasons to believe that this has not been the case in the evaluation of biotechnology. The judgement and recommendations by leading experts in this field indicates an obvious bias in favour of the application of gene technology. For example, the experts of FAO have demonstrated serious neglect of unfavourable observations indicating and a conspicious partiality in their judgement of the value and safety of genetic engineering of food as revealed in the article "Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment: Critique of the Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report".

The article below reports a study that found a significant biasing influence from the pharmacological industry on the conclusions of scientists. Obviously, there are reasons to believe that this is not an unique event. This problem is also discussed in the article "The Fallibility of Scientific Authorities". Therefore, for evaluation of new technologies we have suggested a procedure to secure an impartial assessment.

. . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #581 --January 15, 1998--- . .

FOLLOW THE MONEY (excerpt)

Researchers in Toronto, Canada examined a medical controversy to see which scientists held what sorts of views. The controversy they studied was the use of calcium-channel blockers, which are used to treat high blood pressure and heart disease. In 1995 the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute warned doctors that one such channel-blocker increased the risk of heart attack deaths.[2] Other channel-blockers fell under suspicion of being dangerous.

The Toronto researchers examined 70 articles on channel-blockers, classified the authors into three categories (supporters, neutral, and critical), then mailed surveys to the authors, asking about their financial ties to drug corporations. The 70 articles had a total of 86 authors, and 71 of those returned the surveys. The surveys were intended to answer 3 questions:

1) Whether supporters of calcium-channel blockers were more likely than other authors to have financial ties to manufacturers of calcium-channel blockers. The answer was yes. Ninety-six percent of the supportive authors had financial relationships with manufacturers, as compared with 60 percent of the neutral authors, and 37 percent of the critical authors.

2) Were critics of calcium channel-blockers more likely than other authors to have financial ties to manufacturers of competing products (beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and nitrates). The answer was no. In fact, supportive and neutral authors were more likely than critical authors to have financial ties to manufacturers of competing products (88% and 53% respectively, vs. 37%).

3) Were supporters of calcium-channel blockers more likely than other authors to have financial ties with ANY pharmaceutical manufacturers? The answer was yes. One hundred percent of the supportive authors, compared with 67% of the neutral authors, and 43% of the critical authors, had financial ties to at least one pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Financial ties are defined as any of these five: funds for travel expenses; honorariums for speeches; support for educational programs; research grants; and employment or consulting compensation.

The researchers noted that their study relied on self-reported data and therefore probably underestimated the actual ties between scientists and corporate funders.

The authors noted that in only 2 of the 70 articles did authors divulge their connections to corporations. They concluded, "The medical profession has failed to develop and enforce strict guidelines for disclosing conflicts of interest." And, "Full disclosure of relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers is necessary to affirm the integrity of the medical profession and maintain public confidence.

(Here is a long piece of text about an incidient indicating that "unfortunately, even the columns of the most prestigious medical journal in the U.S. --THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (NEJM) --have been infiltrated by corporate shills posing as objective medical experts." You will find the whole story at URL: gopher://ftp.std.com:70/11/periodicals/rachel , where you look up article #581)

The article finishes with these remarks:

"In any case Safe himself told BOSTON GLOBE reporter Larry Tye, "I felt a little twinge" about the potential for a conflict of interest when writing the editorial, "but it was not much of a twinge," he said. However, "I can see why people would bring it up," he said. Safe defended himself saying, "There's hardly any life scientist in the country who hasn't had funding from the industry" --the old "Everybody's doing it" defense.

Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

===============
[1] Henry Thomas Stelfox and others, "Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 338, No. 2 (January 8, 1998), pgs. 101-106.

[2] Richard A. Knox, "Study finds conflict in medical reports," BOSTON GLOBE January 8, 1998, A12.

[3] Jerry H. Berke, "Book Review: Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 337, No. 21 (November 20, 1997), pg. 1562.

[4] Peter B. Lord, "How Important is One Negative Book Review?" PROVIDENCE [Rhode Island] JOURNAL-BULLETIN December 24, 1997, pg. A-1.

[5] Michele Landsberg, "Famed journal's objectivity gets a black eye," TORONTO STAR December 21, 1997, pg. A2.

[6] Jerry H. Berke, "[Book Review] Textbook of Clinical Occupational and Environmental Medicine," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 332, No. 5 (February 2, 1995), pgs. 340-341. This review is signed, "Jerry H. Berke, M.D., M.P.H., Lexington, MA 02173 W.R. Grace & Co."

[7] Associated Press, "Medical Journal Apologizes for Ethics Blunder," WASHINGTON POST December 28, 1997, pg. A3..

[8] Larry Tye, "Journal fuels conflict-of-interest debate," BOSTON GLOBE January 6, 1998, pgs. B1, B8.

Descriptor terms: new england journal of medicine; conflict of interest; science; jerry berke; stephen safe; chemical manufacturers association; cma; corporations; sandra steingraber; living downstream; bill ravanesi; paul brodeur; woburn, ma; a civil action;

################################################################

NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. --
Peter Montague, Editor #

==========
Environmental Research Foundation
PO. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403.
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== . .