In recent months and years, science has been targeted in various ways by those with agendas that run counter to that of science.
Most recently, the attorneys for the mining industry have sent threatening letters to the editors and publishers of scientific journals in an effort to dissuade them from publishing the results of a twenty-year diesel exhaust study which is expected by those involved in occupational health circles to conclude that there’s a link between diesel exhaust in mines and the cancer among those that work in this environment. The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS), a joint effort between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), sought to determine whether diesel exhaust was an actual cancer-causing agent. Currently, diesel exhaust is listed by the CDC as “a potential human carcinogen, based on a combination of chemical, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity data.”
Veiled Threat
It’s important to note that the letter sent by the law firm Patton Boggs doesn’t actually threaten to sue. It’s not even a cease and desist letter. The threats are completely veiled and subtle, however. And the main theme in the letter is, “carefully consider any intent to publish these papers” and “do not act precipitously to
disturb the status quo, or to frustrate, violate, or interfere with the expected Circuit Court’s ruling…”
Clearly, this is an example of corporate interests trying to influence government, but caught in the middle is reality. Scientific journals deal in reality, not rhetoric. They seek to find the closest approximation of truth available. Corporations are frequently interested only in those truths that help them meet their bottom line.
This story was first revealed (as far as I can tell) by Science Insider with Journals Warned to Keep a Tight Lid on Diesel Exposure Data. The letters were sent by Patton Boggs, working for the Mining Awareness Resource Group and they went to at least four journals including Science, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM), The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, and Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Questions:
Should the editors or publishers of either of these journals worry? Would they not have a good case to argue that the attorneys have it backwards?
The attorneys on either side of the case should be prohibited from making any arguments until the study has been put through the peer-review process of scientific literature. Once the scientific community has had a chance to vet the data, then -and only then- should legal counsel be allowed to argue their claims.
, which she briefly discusses in the video below. The clip is funny and Jennifer clearly should do more public appearances on behalf of science! Look out Neil Tyson!
One of the things that I have always been interested in is presenting science to the public. I’m particularly partial to archaeology and other fields of anthropology, but I’ve long held a fascination with astronomy, geology, biology, and science in general that I feel compelled to share with others. I grew up reading and watching Carl Sagan astound us, the public, with his perspective of the world and the universe. I find myself drawn back to his books time and again, looking for inspiration and guidance.
Recent Discourse