Tainted by association?
Richard Doll's links with industry are disconcerting but hardly scandalous. And they don't make him a villain, says Philip Ball.
Few things will polarize opinion like the dressing down of a recently deceased and revered figure. That's clear enough in the debate that has followed the recent media splash on accusations that Sir Richard Doll, the British epidemiologist credited with identifying the link between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s, compromised the integrity of his research by receiving consultancy payments from the chemicals industry.
Read the column here.
Comments
hmmm... Certainly a poster child for why disclosure is so important. I think that this info is important and should be considered when assessing his contributions to 'science'. Clearly some conflicts there with resultant deep bias towards the industries paying him. Sad. As a veteran, JetGun vaccination cross infected with HCV, 800,000 of US confirmed now, they in medical 'science' certainly knew they were doing that to US teenagers serving. We lived miserably from that day onward and are dieing wholesale now. No one wants to 'hear' it. I know that corporate/gov is quite willing to pay for and get the 'result' they desire, for profit. Doll's claim that Agent Orange (dioxin) was no biggy was quite egregious. Many many of my fellows sufferred horribly for his and others 'ok' on this one too. It was well established, known, that dioxin was extremely dangerous. Asbestos!? Don't think I have to comment on that one. Kind of late to excoriate him, his deadly sins and why are quite evident. He did though report, if weakly, some of the dangers. It's good that we demand now, however toothless, disclosure on industry ties to researchers. Well proven indeed that any result desired can be obtained from someone of credential, or another. They just 'shop it' for the 'rubber stamp'. You in Science should be deeply angered, indeed 'up in arms' about this, no quarter given. It is your credibility.. viability as scientists.. at stake. Witness the scientific 'censorship' by the Bushites today. Great Danger Afoot. Thanks. Good Report.
Posted by: Bobby Baxter ~ Veteran & Marijuana Felon | December 18, 2006 06:50 PM
Doll the epidemiologist was paid for a study refuting claims that vinyl chloride caused cancers in the workforce (other than angiosarcoma). He likewise disputed the propostion that asbestos was a major health risk.
Why was he wrong in both instances? Wasn’t it because he relied on the 95%ile test for statistical significance? His insistence on that much-criticised test fails of course as a guide for precautionary action. It was used even to justify verdicts of ‘no concern’ and ‘no further investigations’. An unscientific criterion that has been most helpful to the chemical and asbestos companies.
In the case of vinyl chloride, the chemical was recognised for angiosarcoma, which gives legitimate suspicion of carcinogenicity in other ways. Doll’s hard-line epidemiology ignored such qualitative evidence.
Espousal of an unscientific criterion that helps secure continuing support from industry for his research sounds to me pretty close to compromising one's integrity.
Posted by: Max Wallis | December 18, 2006 08:11 PM
Why is it that industries, businesses, corporates and even laymen can make money from their findings - but the instance a scientist does it, it becomes dirty ?
Why indeed should Sir Richard Doll be a villain ? As the article points out, it is not "questionable" to accept consultancy payments, but is certainly so to suppress scientific evidence due to financial pressures from the sponsors. Something that he (most remarkably and admirably) did not do.
Posted by: Sonika Bhatnagar | December 19, 2006 05:23 AM