EPA Archives - Hormones Matter

Can We Trust Government and Academic Scientists to Protect Us?

Published on November 10, 2021

3381 views

Perhaps I’m naive, but I’ve always assumed that academic and government scientists were generally trustworthy, unbiased (or, at least as unbiased as possible given their humanity), and that they should be viewed as sources of truth. Academic and government scientists have minimal conflicts of interest, and they seek truth and the protection of the public, right? Every field has some bad-apples, but, as a general rule, I always assumed that government and academic scientists were the truth-seekers and protectors of the public. I assumed that they were objective, thoughtful public servants who were minimally swayed by corporate, political, or personal conflicts—because science is supposed to be a truth-finding method that isn’t supposed to be swayed by subjectivity, money, conflicts, or biases.

A Loss of Faith in Government and Academic Scientists

Those views have been shattered recently, and I’m left wondering, if I cannot trust government and academic scientists, who can I trust?

Some of the many reasons why I no longer trust the academic or government scientists are outlined in the (frankly, depressing) interview with Professor Marc Edwards that was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “The Water Next Time: Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public Science Is Broken.” In it, Professor Edwards notes that:

I am very concerned about the culture of academia in this country and the perverse incentives that are given to young faculty. The pressures to get funding are just extraordinary. We’re all on this hedonistic treadmill — pursuing funding, pursuing fame, pursuing h-index — and the idea of science as a public good is being lost.

When the most lucrative sources of funding for academic scientists are from pharmaceutical companies, agro-chemical corporations, the petroleum industry, and other big-moneyed interests—how are the academic scientists supposed to feel free to criticize those industries? Even if the financing sources are government agencies, academic scientists avoid criticizing them in order to keep the doors for future funding open. Edwards continues to iterate the problem:

You are your funding network as a professor. You can destroy that network that took you 25 years to build with one word. I’ve done it. When was the last time you heard anyone in academia publicly criticize a funding agency, no matter how outrageous their behavior? We just don’t do these things.

Edwards also notes the failures of the government scientists and regulatory agencies:

In Flint the agencies paid to protect these people weren’t solving the problem. They were the problem.

When the Government Agencies ARE the Problem

Unfortunately, the failure of government agencies to protect the public is not limited to the failure of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to recognize that the water in Flint, Michigan contained dangerously high levels of lead. The EPA also failed to recognize that DuPont was poisoning the water supply in Parkersburg, West Virginia with their production of Teflon and other perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8) products. (The New York Times Magazine article, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” and The Huffington Post article, “Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia: Home to one of the most brazen, deadly corporate gambits in U.S. History” describe this environmental and health catastrophe.) The EPA not only failed to recognize and address the problems in Flint and Parkersburg, they actively hid the problems and even went so far as to blame the victims. Unfortunately, the situation in Flint (and the similar situation in Washington DC in 2010) and the situation in Parkersburg are not isolated incidents in an otherwise well-run and well-incentivized system. They are examples that illustrate systemic problems in academic and government “science.” The system is broken, and a broken system is not to be trusted.

“These people are unscientific.”

Says Edwards in his interview. He goes on to say:

I grew up worshiping at the altar of science, and in my wildest dreams I never thought scientists would behave this way. The only way I can construct a worldview that accommodates this is to say, these people are unscientific. Science should be about pursuing the truth and helping people. If you’re doing it for any other reason, you really ought to question your motives.

Amen to that.

I hope that other brave scientists, like Professor Edwards, start speaking up, and that the system changes—for the credibility of all academic and government scientists, and, more importantly, for our safety and health.

Who to Trust?

I am truly saddened to be left with the question of – if I cannot trust the government and academic scientists (I didn’t even consider trusting the corporate scientists) to give me and other members of the public accurate information about the safety of our water, food, medicines, consumer goods, etc., who can I trust?

Personally, I trust the victims and the whistle-blowers. I trust the people who are screaming about how they, or their loved ones, have been hurt by toxic pharmaceuticals, pesticides, food additives, poisoned water, and more. The victims and the whistle-blowers are screaming loudly despite having nothing to be gained, and often much to lose, from screaming. I trust the people who have no financial incentives shaping their views, who are reporting on what they experience and what they have researched. On the other hand, I don’t trust the people who are so blinded by their financing sources that they refuse to criticize them, and I’m saddened to hear that many academic scientists are in this category.

One of the beauties of the scientific method is that it removes a lot of subjectivity and personal bias from the equation. Victims, and sometimes whistle-blowers, are reporting on their personal experience, and thus, there is always a certain amount of subjectivity in what they report. However, I’ll take a little subjectivity and transparent bias when listening to a victim or whistle-blower over a person who has scientific credentials but who is swayed against reporting the truth by “enormous pressure” to please their funding sources.

In both Flint and Parkersburg, the EPA actively covered-up corporate and government malfeasance that was hurting the citizens of those communities, and a large number of academic scientists stood by and didn’t question the corporations or government’s actions because they didn’t want their funding to be jeopardized. I don’t trust the people who think that way.

I hope that the recognition that Professor Edwards and his Virginia Tech team receive for their work in Flint makes other academic (and government) scientists think, and that some mechanisms are put into place that will ensure that government and academic science is credible, minimally biased, trustworthy, etc. Government regulators and funders, as well as those in academia, have important roles to play. They need to play their roles well, or we will all lose faith in them, or worse, get hurt by their negligence.

Until systemic changes are put into place to encourage government and academic scientists to be more driven by truth and public service than money, I’m going to continue to believe the victims and whistle-blowers over the government and academic officials. Sure, subjective reporting has its problems, but there is more value in a personal anecdote than there is in greed-driven “science” where the goal is funding rather than truth.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image created using Canva AI.

This article was published originally on February 15, 2016.

Evaluating Endocrine Disruptor Research

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on July 30, 2015

3447 views

Every now and again, we see a flurry of press releases flooding social media about new research purporting to prove that endocrine disruptors are safe. Most recently, the press has been focused Bisphenol A or BPA. New FDA proclamations suggest that it has no impact on health. When one reads the actual research upon which these statements are based, it says no such thing. Unless of course, the research is funded by industry, then it is almost always positive. A report in Newsweek found:

In 2013, for example, the American Chemistry Council spent more than $11 million on lobbying expenses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Industry groups have also funded, and in some cases written up, research done by governmental scientists. One 2008 investigation, by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, found that “a government report claiming that bisphenol-A is safe was written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake in the controversial chemical.”

The report goes on to state that the FDA

…dismissed as irrelevant the vast majority of the BPA safety studies its own scientists reviewed in preparation for that official position statement. According to the FDA, for example, all of the 48 epidemiological studies reviewed had ‘no utility’ for the agency’s risk assessment, the formal process it undertakes to decide if a chemical is safe for human health or not.

With such contradictory claims about safety, who should we believe? How do we evaluate the safety research about endocrine disruptors? Here is a primer.

Industry Sponsored Research Is Biased

In a mini-review of research on bisphenol A (BPA) – the endocrine disruptor in plastics, of the 115 studies published on adverse effects of BPA 81.7% (94) reported significant adverse health effects (2004). However, upon review, it was found that 90% of the government funded, academic research found significant adverse effects while 100% of the industry-sponsored research found no ill-effects of BPA – none. This is a common theme across all industries – pharmaceutical included. When billions of dollars are on the line, industry sponsored studies will show favorable results more often than not. Always check the author’s conflict-of-interest disclosures at the back the article. If none are reported though, don’t assume they do not exist. Not all conflicts of interests are disclosed. You may have to do additional digging to identify conflicts.

FDA or EPA Approved Does not Mean Safe or Risk-Free

Both agencies have long histories of approving and then failing to recall dangerous chemicals, drugs and devices from the market. Their work is particularly incompetent in reproductive (endocrine) and women’s health: thalidomide, DES, Yasmin/Yaz, HRT, Mirena, Prolift to name but a few that have garnered the seal of approval by the FDA. Phthalates, BPA, Glyphosate for the EPA. Remember the EPA doesn’t even study the female reproductive dangers unless research shows that a chemical impacts the male reproductive system.

Research Methods Matter

Perhaps more so than in any other field of science, endocrine research requires serious consideration of all aspects of the study protocol. This means that you cannot rely on a press release about the research to determine the study’s relevance. You must read the original research and evaluate the methods. (Reading original research is a good habit to have for all matters that affect your health and well-being). Once you pull the research, here are some things to consider.

Length of study. Most hormone reactions are longer term and span generations. If the study is short duration, as in the case with the industry sponsored GMO research or doesn’t include third generation effects, as with BPA research – question the results.
Population studied. Whether one is investigating a chemical or a drug in humans or in rodents, the sample population matters. Ascertaining safety of efficacy by testing only healthy young men, when the drug or chemical is meant for the real world where women, children, elderly, healthy and not so healthy individuals reside, is common practice and recipe for disaster. Same is true for rodent research – the strain, sex, age and health of the animal must be considered if the work is to be extrapolated to real humans. I read one study claiming that BPA was safe, but they used a strain of rats that was resistant to environmental estrogens. Of course, BPA’s estrogens would not affect these estrogen-resistant rodents.
Outcomes measured. What does the study measure and how does it evaluate change? More often than not, industry sponsored research will not measure the appropriate endpoints or reproductive dangers. Sometimes this is sleight of hand, other times it is simply ignorance of the endocrine system’s far-reaching regulatory control. In either case, one has to evaluate what the study actually measures before determining its validity. Here, you can use a bit of personal experience – what systems, organs or behaviors are affected by your hormones? If the study didn’t measure any of these variables, then it’s probably not a very solid protocol.
‘Gold-standard’ protocols are not always golden. It takes years, decades even for ‘gold-standards’ to become the accepted methods – often well after their utility has run out and newer, more sophisticated tools have reached the market. This has been the case for endocrine testing and endocrine disruptor evaluation. If a study rests all of its findings using a gold standard, it may not be using the most sensitive testing methods.
Clinical significance is not the same as statistical significance. Clinical significance means the chemical/drug has some meaningful impact on the health or well-being of the individual or animal. Statistical significance is just a math equation. A simple increase in sample size while limiting or ‘restructuring’ outcome variables is all it takes to derive statistical significance in most research. Does that mean the drug or chemical has clinically relevant health effects – not necessarily. The opposite is also true. Want to obfuscate the dangers of a drug/chemical? Do a huge study (preferably by combining dozens of poor quality individual studies into a meta analysis), throw everything but the kitchen sink into the analysis, do simple stats and highlight the lack of statistical significance in the death or injury rates. Only a small fraction of the study population died – but it wasn’t statistically significant, so the drug/chemical is considered safe. If the study does not study distinguish between clinical and statistical significance or downplays the death and injury rates as statistically insignificant, approach cautiously.
Hormone reactions do not conform to linear statistics. Damn it, how dare our complex physiology not conform to the simplicity of linear statistics. A common dose-response curve is highly linear, where a small dose elicits a similarly small response and a larger dose increase the response size. This is not case when dealing with endocrine disruptors. Hormone systems are complex and highly non-linear. Hormone dose-response curves are often in the shape of an inverted U where low doses elicit huge responses, mid-level doses elicit minimal responses and high doses again elicit huge responses. And so, any study measuring hormone effects using simple, linear, dose response calculations is bound to miss the effects entirely.
Hormones have metabolites (as does everything else). Metabolites evoke their own reactions. We know that some of the metabolites from BPA are stronger, 1000X stronger in fact, than BPA itself. Studies that don’t address the full complement of hormone products that circulate in our bodies as a result of exposure to something like BPA will severely underestimate the safety issues.

In a nutshell, we have to do our homework. There is no simple ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ for products that impact health and well-being. We wouldn’t trust the marketing put out by car manufacturers or, worse yet, a car salesmen, about the safety, gas efficiency, repair history and comfort of a new/used car; why do we trust the makers of chemicals to give us the straight story. We shouldn’t. We have to become educated consumers of health research in order to protect ourselves.