Why Scientist Don't Speak Up When Science is Distorted?

For years, friends and colleagues have asked me: why don't scientists speak up when the media hypes the latest health scare? They ask why scientists sit mute when self-appointed environmental activists claim there is a cancer epidemic (there is not) or that "chemicals" in products ranging from lipstick to rubber duckies to plastic bottles cause cancer and reproductive abnormalities (they don't). I think I know the answer: it is simpler and safer to remain quiet and let the falsehoods prevail than it is to stand up and confront the hyperbole.

Let me give you a recent personal example.

In August, a CNN reporter named Jordana Miller contacted me to say she was working on a segment on "bio-monitoring," a trend where people are seeking to have their blood analyzed to learn if there may be "chemicals" present that would jeopardize their health. I agreed -- and was the subject of an aggressive one-hour interview on camera in my office, the footage for possible use in the upcoming CNN segment.

When the segment never appeared on CNN, we inquired as to its status and Ms. Miller told us that the program was moving ahead but that there was no room for my point of view. The planned segment was built on the premise that any detection of a "chemical" in blood was a sign of looming illness -- maybe death -- and it appears that my point of view was so at variance with that claim that it was to be omitted as not to neutralize the story.

Yesterday, however, CNN released a short video and commentary on their website. The headline of Ms. Miller's story said it all: "Tests Reveal High Chemical Levels in Kids' Bodies." The text went on to describe parents of young children who were horrified that "chemicals" were being detected in their kids' blood. And it quoted an"expert":

"We are the humans in a dangerous and unnatural experiment in the United States, and I think it's unconscionable," said Dr. Leo Trasande, assistant director of the Center for Children's Health and the Environment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.

Trasande says that industrial toxins could be leading to more childhood disease and disorders.

"We are in an epidemic of environmentally mediated disease among American children today," he said. "Rates of asthma, childhood cancers, birth defects and developmental disorders have exponentially increased, and it can't be explained by changes in the human genome. So what has changed? All the chemicals we're being exposed to."

In a gesture toward "balance" Ms. Miller then quoted me:

Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health [ACSH], a public health advocacy group, disagrees.

"My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false," she said. Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks.

Literally within moments of the posting (it was for a good part of the morning the lead story on CNN), I began getting e-mails and phonecalls stating I should be "ashamed" of myself, asking "how you get to sleep at night," claiming that I was responsible for suffering and death among children -- frequently accompanied by the assertion that I did not represent science but was a tool for the "chemical industry." (ACSH's very modest budget is derived from a full spectrum of sources, private foundations, corporations and, most recently, from thousands of individual Americans who are sick of "junk science" dominating the media and send ACSH checks to assist us in neutralizing the "scares du jour" with a hefty helping of scientific facts.)

One correspondent included bcc'ed ire-filled e-mails to ACSH Trustees suggesting that I be fired for making such allegedly outrageous assertion. These furious CNN readers/viewers were nearly hysterical over the fact that ACSH was defined as "a public health advocacy group" -- which of course is exactly what ACSH is.

Did what I said merit such an attack on me? No, of course not. None of those admonishing me had presented any explanation as to why their scientific positions were right and mine were wrong. They simply invoked the standard ad hominem attacks on me -- their smug belief being that anyone who disagreed with them was by definition a paid liar.

The above example is just one of many I could relate which confirm that there are real disincentives for scientists to stand up and set the record straight when science is distorted (as it was on the CNN website yesterday). The film clip that CNN posted with the above-mentioned article featured CNN's Anderson Cooper having one pint of his blood drawn to test for "chemicals." The doctor drawing his blood asserted that there is an "epidemic" of childhood disease -- including cancer -- all related to "chemicals." That assertion is totally false.

The good doctor had no idea what he was talking about. But he was featured in prime time to convey his misinformation. He would probably be shocked that an analysis of human blood for chemicals of natural origin would inevitably find traces of many perfectly natural chemicals, including arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, solanine, and more. Our ability to detect traces of anything in anything has left us with more data than we know what to do with. Again, the mere fact that you can detect a chemical does not mean it poses a hazard of any type.

What scientist wants to subject him or herself to personal attack for simply stating common sense and basic scientific facts? Easier to retreat to the laboratory and classroom -- and leave center stage to the "toxic terrorists" who want us to believe there is a carcinogen on every plate, a toxin in every drop of water we drink, poison in every bit of air we breathe. The threat of personal vilification has largely silenced the scientific community -- and chilled the dialogue so that only the bad news gets coverage.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

Comments

[Zanti]

So, the writer has been exposed as a shill, and people continue to buy her essay. Proof positive that the left is where all the smarter people are.

Tuh-morrow, dey're takin' us to duh zoo!! Yope, yope, yope!

[knosiswar]

I remember back before Reagan when I trusted the Surgeon General and the FDA. What ever happened to the Surgeon General and the FDA?

[dadw5boys]

Just do your job well. Because your not very well informed to be making comments.
There are a large number of over the counter drugs on the market that can cause bleeding into the brain and allow chemical from the blood to pass the blood brain barrier.
When you say it is not dangerous to have a few chemical in you body I diagree.
Just look at an Auto Mechanic with SWOLLEN HANDS FROM PETRO CHEMICAL POISIONING. He cleans his hand constantly but the chemical soak in and swell his hand as the blood is fighting to get in and out of the hands carrying along traces of the poision to the rest of his body. But no one tells him what damage can be caused by this poisioning do they?

[luziannagirl]

Part of the problem in how the public views science is that science education has been dumbed down and distorted in elementary through high school textbooks since at least the mid-1970's.

Right-wing groups interested in protecting their theological doctrines and using public resources to evangelize, and threatened by any fact-based outlook, have primarily via the large textbook buying markets of Texas and California controlled the textbook publishing industry for decades. They have been dictating to publishers what "science" to publish, distorting and in some cases leaving out entirely cornerstone concepts like evolution. The books also rarely describe the nature of the scientific community (peer reviewed, ect), and place way too much emphasis on experimentation when describing the scientific process. It's just the last few yrs legitimate, major mainstream science groups have stepped in to try and clean up the mess, but it's quite difficult battling the righteous.

What we got out of it is an entire generation of Americans who are the modern-day equivalent of flat-earthers, and a government which finds it easy to make up its own science and only use real science whenever they find it convenient, and a news media which even if it wanted to do real science reporting, can't afford real science reporters (some of the most expensive).

The few real science reporters left, like the excellent HuffPost and other blogger, and best-selling author (_The Republican War on Science_) Chris Mooney, now must make a living writing books and lecturing. A few can find work reporting in the news sections of major science journals and newsletters. Fewer and fewer major newspapers have science beats anymore, or even combined science/technology or science/nature beats.

Science-literate broadcasters like Bill Moyers and Peter Jennings are now either relegated to corners of public TV or they're dead, and mostly they are not being replaced. (Or they spend their time in other employment and satisfy their science-reporting passion a bit by blogging)

No wonder Americans don't know who to believe, so they gravitate to the flashy and simple.

[WilliePilgrim]

Oh...and another reason scientists have stopped speaking up when they see science distorted is because of the treatment scientists recieve when they propose unpopular, though scientifically accurate, explanations...just listen to the rancor hurled at Freeman Dyson over the last couple of weeks for suggesting that heresy is good and that we could use some when it comes to the avalanche of opinion from experts not in the field of climate, using their credentials in their fields to bolster efforts to modify the climate based on models that are way too simplified to rely on.

[WilliePilgrim]

Oh, I think I see where the problem lies in this. The author has bought into the idea that those so-called broadcast journalists have some kind of obligation to report the news fairly. There may be news organizations that do that but let's not confuse those with what, for the most part, passes for news or jounalism. Once you get over that you'll see that the primary obligation that these "news" providers have it to make as much money as possible (can't get out there to find the news if you're broke...but then again why spend all that money finding news when we're happy to hear all about Rosie's latest faux-pas or the sad story of a beautiful young girl lost or in peril or some high profile egomaniancs latest sexual escapade...we're monkeys and it's what we like). News providers make money by having more people watch and we are obviously more interested in scandal and exploitation than insight. So if you're put-off by the way science news, or any factually based news, is presented, turn off the tv and start reading, but you can forget about watching the popular media if insight and nuance, the realm of the intelligent, is of any interest to you.

[Zanti]

Nuance means "a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude."

The word is popularly misused to mean depth or complexity. Or so I'm observing all over the place.

[Gigantopithecus]

The vast majority of the general population and the media is scientifically illiterate. The tendency to ascribe anything beyond their understanding of the universe to "God's will" and close their limited minds to other possibilities doesn't help the situation.

This problem is almost as bad on the political left as on the right, although the scientific ignorance from the right has been far more noticeable in recent years.

Scientists are generally not used to dumbing-down their findings and when the Media attempts to do so, they usually get it wrong.

What we need is better science education, less religion, and a more scientists with the ability to translate science to a broader audience.

[SamThornton]

I think there may be two reasons scientists don't bother correcting morons: common sense and golf. Why waste time arguing with someone who wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit them in the ass when you could be out golfing?

[ilvlamp]

Sam: When you brought up golf, I was reminded of how many professional golfers believe in "junk science." There are so many that wear magnetic bracelets to "balance their energy" and necklaces with the promise of "detoxifying their systems."

It's hard to argue science with people that's belief in something is so strong, they will attach your character because they can't debate with facts. I find it prevalent among the religious right.

[DocPhysics]

A reply to Sam from a practicing scientist.

An old joke about the advantage of having a mistress. The doctor claims there are health benefits, the lawyer claims there can be tax advantages. The scientist explains "I tell my wife I'll be with my mistress, and I tell my mistress I have to be with my wife. That way I can go to the lab and get some work done."

Golf doesn't enter at all.

[Wilburrr]

A very quick search of the web led me to another of your articles, published in the Wall Street Journal in 2000. Titled "Who Says PCB's Cause Cancer?" http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/PCBs-Cause-Cancer-Whelan-ACSH.htm
this article seems to shed some light on your agenda. Manufacture of PCB's was stopped in this country in 1977 due to their link with cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry list PCB's as 'probable carcinogens' a pretty strong indictment in the chemical world. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/pcb/index.html

So it appears that your agenda is clearly on the side of the chemical industry, not on the side of science.

[SamThornton]

Good catch. SourceWatch has some additional background information:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Whelan

[Newfycrat]

Thank-you, for while I agree that just because you find chemicals in your body it does not mean a causation to a specific illness, the way this argument was presented sounded as much like pseudoscience as creationism. It set my radar off for sure. With all the links between pesticides and various diseases as only one example, to make such a blanket statement although true, is misleading.
More accurate would be to ask about which "chemicals" people are testing for and what studies have pointed towards in each instance.
To even use quotation marks around "chemicals" people are testing for is belittling.
Yes, nothing is simple, the body is a complex organism, but PubMed is available to look up a lot of studies on the effects of organic and inorganic "chemicals" in our bodies. PCBs are a good example. UC Davis just did a study on the effect of arsenic in kelp supplements.
If the argument is kept at the level of "chemicals" rather than details, it is easy to keep it in the level of absurdity.

[Zanti]

Oops. And she almost had me fooled. Thanks.

Investigate, investigate. It only takes a few moments, and we can learn so much by doing it.

[avicenna]

Thanks! That was certainly enlightening:
"Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an industry funded organization." - I suppose the reasons behind the muted scientists are the same as why that piece of critical info was equally muted. I also suppose our "nonexpert" but truth seer, Ms Whelan, is sure that humans contributing to climate change is also a huge hoax perpetuated by so-called "experts" holding PhDs and studying melting ice caps and Malibu fires and crying wolf.

[kevinabt]

I don't see how any of this invalidates her point about irrationality in the media which gets carried over to irrationality in the general population which deters knowledgable people from speaking out about bad information.

[Wilburrr]

It doesn't and that is a very good point but the opposite is also true. By this I mean that when something similar to what Whelan brings up is discovered, good science would demand caution, cynicism, and investigation. That is NOT her position. We are seeing increasing numbers of kids diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, autism, asthma, and a host of other ailments including cancers. There has to be a reason, the reason has to involve chemicals (after all, what else is there?) but Whelan's position is "there's no trouble here." Sounds very much like Pacific Gas and Electric's position with hexavalent chromium contamination of the drinking water in Hinkley, CA, and the fame of Erin Brockovich.

Whelan hides behind the veil of "good science" knowing that is NOT what she is practicing.

[avicenna]

It brings into question why she is questioning the finding that certain chemicals (produced by industry) has the potential to be carcinogenic. She is giving the impression that scientists don't speak up - and they certainly do speak for their research - but often the roar of industry over "hype" and "you're overreacting" is quite loud thanks to planted nay sayers - like Ms. Whelan who only has to put a kernal of doubt of the potential validity of the idea that industry pollutes a bunch of harmful chemicals which could be quite harmful to the health of you and your loved ones. And, since I was quite a stickler for outing Ms. Whelan's conflict of interest, I will say I am speaking as a badged scientist employed in academia.

[lefty2026]

Being funded by an industry hardly invalidates someone's argument. Everyone has biases that should be considered when reading, but even biased people sometimes make good points.

This is one of my pet peeves, I work in the nuclear energy industry, and also advocate for increased use of nuclear power. I argue with facts learned through my engineering education, conversations with people who have 20+ years of experience with many different types of power industries (coal, wind, solar, hydro, etc), and my own experience. Yet since my financial interests now align with the industry I am biased, and everyone of my arguments can be blown off. I am pleased to see that most people have still seen this article for what it is. Elizabeth makes great points about the public's mistrust and misunderstanding of science.

[stevesrant]

And she does so in a masterful stroke of irony, by exemplifying the phenomenon she rails against. She never offers a single shred of scientific evidence, or cites a single instance of objective research to back up her position on the chemical issue, but instead simply makes such statements as "that assertion is totally false". Perhaps the real reason more true scientists don't speak out is the host of imposters filling that role - as well as the inability of the general public to discern the difference.

[MGhamma]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that scientists and regular people essentally speak different languages. Or that maybe 'bad' news catches peoples attention more than 'good' news, or neutral news. Or maybe people have gotten to the point that we don't trust anything that we read or hear anymore, and decide to err on the side of caution, coupled with the need to feel that we understand whats going on , so that we can deal with it.ETC ETC ETC.

[Wilburrr]

What is the use? Who wants to waste their time arguing evolution to an uninformed public? Who wants to advance their findings on global climate change when the White House changes the reports and the media buys into the story put forth by the big energy corporations? The simple term "chemical" delivers a negative connotation to the American public. There is a store around the corner from where I live that advertises a water purification process that uses 'No Chemicals!'

You tell only half the story. Yes we have increasing ability to detect many chemicals in ever smaller concentrations. This ability also gives us the ability to measure change in concentrations yet your article does not state which chemicals have appeared to decrease or which appear to be increasing over time. What chemicals are showing up in the bloodstreams of kids that we have not seen before? Wouldn't it be prudent, as was the case with chlorofluo­rocarbons, to take a cautious approach? Why would your paper appear to diminish the threat without explaining the complete story? That would represent good science.

[crabcake]

It's hard to trust anything the media puts out as science. I find myself asking, "who benefits from these so-called scientific findings." It shouldn't be hard to understand why most people don't believe in global warming or that our planet is in peril. Thirty years ago they were warning us of a new ice age. What will they be telling us thirty years from now? God only knows.

[chery]

I can understand that scientists don't want to deal with this fringe element, but if some don't take that stance and stand up for real science then all we have left is the gossip mill of psuedo-science sound bites to rely upon. And that's a frightening thought! Look at the confusion that's come about over evolution or the tripe that's offered on sex education or abortion as medical fact or global warming. We need scientists to be courageous and stick it out for us, the lowly masses who need and deserve educated balanced information. Please, overlook the few who make up that hysterical herd mentality. Remember those of us who are desperately trying to find all sides that have spoken, so we can figure out what is going on.

[demockracy]

In the U.S., chemicals are "innocent until proven guilty," rather than guilty until proven innocent (the European practice). I'd be a lot more sanguine about defenders of these many chemicals if U.S. public policy makers were as interested in defending consumers as they are in defending chemical companies.

For example, I just heard that there may be a link between increased breast cancer and the use of hair straightening products in young African-American women. African-Americans start using these products very young, when girls are developing, so the damage could be in those early, generative stages, and could take years to detect.

Do we require a test for this, or even a disclaimer on the package? Is this even common knowledge, or the subject of well-funded research?

And are the hair straightener companies required to hold their products off the market until they can prove they have no ill health effects?

"No!" is the answer.

I'll agree that panic is never a well-reasoned response to a question of public policy, but neither is shilling for the chemical, pharmaceutical, or petro-chemical industries, especially in light of the numerous abuses of the public trust that have come from them.

After all, Exxon has made sure climate change skeptics are incredibly well paid, despite promoting scientific claims that have been repeatedly debunked.

What do you think, Dr. Whelan?

[iluvsam]

Try being a scientist who refutes that God exists and tries to educate people on evolution, such as Richard Dawkins. I've heard people call him names that I didn't even know existed in the English language. The sad part is, people would rather be frightened by misinformation than at peace with the truth.

[sorenmeetsdylan]

As opposed to the names he calls unbelievers? How obtuse you must be.

[Wilburrr]

Science can address the process of evolution through natural selection. A scientist who tries to address the existence of God is stepping well beyond the scope of his/her expertise. I know many scientists who believe very strongly in their faith.

Science has never had problems with the church but the church has had many problems with science.

[iluvsam]

Now why are YOU resorting to name calling? Calling me obtuse wasn't necessary, nor is it true.