View
218
Download
5
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE 50:239–240 (2007)
Letter to the Editor
RE: Secret Ties to Industry and ConflictingInterests in Cancer Research
To the Editor:
Hardell et al. [2007] discuss a number of instances of
apparent conflict of interest between research work carried
out by academic scientists and their sources of funding from
industry. I wish to make two points in relation to this article,
but I should initially declare that for almost 30 years I was
employed by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) before
retiring in 2006, and during this employment was involved
both in many contentious areas of research concerning
ionizing radiation and in associated litigation. I still receive
some funding from industry as a consultant.
My first point concerns Sir Richard Doll, one of those
scientists whose integrity is questioned by Hardell et al.
[2007] because of his occasional close links with industry
over a long and distinguished career. Sir Richard died in
2005 and, therefore, cannot respond to the allegations of
Hardell et al. (who notably fail to attempt to provide some
perspective in their article by mentioning that Doll gave
evidence on behalf of claimants in smoking litigation).
I worked with Sir Richard a number of times from the late-
1980s and have the greatest respect for him, and I do believe
that something should be said on his behalf in response to
the article of Hardell et al.
It should be made clear at the outset that Sir Richard did
not attempt to hide his links with industry—nor the fees he
received, many of which went to Green College, Oxford,
which he helped establish—and details were contained in
correspondence he donated to the Wellcome Library, which
is open to public inspection. He believed that industry had a
responsibility to directly fund research into risks that were
possibly associated with its products and operations. Doll’s
remarkable intelligence and clarity of thought are renowned
throughout the scientific community and shine through in his
many significant papers; but equally impressive was his
shrewdness and perspicacity—he worked with, rather than
against, industry to allow epidemiological studies to be
conducted that, because of their complexity, might otherwise
not have been carried out. An example of such a study is that
reported in one of the last papers he co-authored [Binks et al.,
2005]. Of course, a high degree of authority and gravitas is
required to be able to conduct oneself in this way; in my
experience, Sir Richard had no difficulty whatsoever in
obtaining the independence of action he demanded when
involved in consultancy or research funded by industry. He
recognized, however, that this would not be so simple for
junior scientists, and that some mechanism needed to be put
in place to protect researchers from inappropriate influence
or, indeed, the accusation by those not liking the results of
such research that pressure had been applied by the funding
organization.
Doll was of the firm belief that the results of scientific
studies should speak for themselves, leaving policy-makers
to separately deal with the social and political implications of
research findings. By way of illustration, he frequently stated
his conclusion that the evidence pointed to a non-zero, albeit
small, risk from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation
[e.g., Doll, 1998; Doll and Wakeford, 1997], perhaps not the
most gratifying of inferences for the nuclear industry (or,
indeed, medicine). Further, he did not dismiss the possibility
of a small risk of childhood leukemia associated with
exposure to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic
fields (ELF-EMF), which hardly panders to the electricity
supply industry that helped fund research on this subject. One
aspect of Sir Richard that may be of relevance to the article of
Hardell et al. [2007] was his uncompromising attitude
towards bad research and the partisan reporting of results—
he would not tolerate this and spoke out forcibly and
effectively if he believed that this had occurred. Naturally,
this did not go down well with those on the receiving end of
his criticism, and perhaps an element of this can be detected
in the article of Hardell et al., with its references to
� 2007Wiley-Liss, Inc.
*Correspondence to: Richard Wakeford, Visiting Professor, The Dalton Nuclear Institute,The University of Manchester, Pariser Building-G Floor, PO Box 88, Sackville Street,Manche-ster, M60 1QDUKE-mail: Richard.Wakeford@manchester.ac.uk
Accepted18 January 2007DOI10.1002/ajim.20455. Published online inWiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
Doll’s criticisms of the work of Dr. Hardell. Certainly,
his withering sarcasm in response [Doll, 2001] to a previous
ill-informed piece by Mr. Walker (the second author of the
article by Hardell et al.) has provided entertainment for its
readers, and probably some discomfiture on the part of
Mr. Walker.
My second point relates to the fundamental nature of the
concept of conflict of interest. Dr. Hardell, the principal
author of the article, does not, apparently, believe it relevant
to declare that he has appeared as an expert witness in the
courts of law and has, presumably, been paid a fee for
this. Does the prospect of being paid by lawyers wanting
Dr Hardell to present evidence in support of their clients’
claims influence his research and the presentation of its
findings? Is it of relevance that the publicity generated by the
article of Hardell et al. might attract the attention of lawyers
in search of suitable (paid) experts?Undoubtedly,Dr.Hardell
would deny that such issues would influence his scientific
work or its reporting; but could this be viewed as a potential
conflict of interest and is it something of which readers
should be aware from the article itself? Mr. Walker,
the second author, runs a web-site, which, in addition to
promoting his political views, sells his own books published
by his own company (http://www.slingshotpublication-
s.com/). Should this be declared explicitly, since it is
arguable that Mr. Walker could gain financially from
the publicity resulting from the publication of the article?
Mr. Walhjalt and Mr. Friedman, the third and fourth authors,
also run web-sites, advertising their campaigning activities
and requesting subscriptions/donations (http://www.
gbg.bonet.se/bwf/eng/subscr.html and http://www.tspri.org/
fundraising.html, respectively, web-sites which, under the
circumstances, I find rather opaque as to the exact
governance of the organizations they promote), and
the link between Dr Richter, the fifth author, and Mr.
Friedman’s organization (http://www.tspri.org/about.html)
is not declared in the authors’ affiliations presented in the
article. Should those reading the article of Hardell et al. be
made aware of this background at the outset, so they can draw
their own conclusions? The issue is not that Dr. Hardell and
his colleagues campaign and fee-earn/sell/fundraise in their
various ways, which they have every right to do, but to what
extent this might affect their interpretation of the issues they
address. It is surely not a sustainable argument that scientists
linked to pressure groups are free from associated influences
upon their work and the reporting of its results.
In conclusion, the subject discussed by Hardell et al.
[2007] is an important one that requires careful considera-
tion. Their treatment of this complex concept of conflict of
interest is, however, rather partisan and one-dimensional, and
arguably self-serving. They conveniently ignore material
influences upon researchers other than industry funding,
including those to which they are presumably subjected
themselves.
REFERENCES
Binks K, Doll R, Gillies M, Holroyd C, Jones SR, McGeoghegan D,Scott L, Wakeford R, Walker P. 2005. Mortality experience of maleworkers at a UK tin smelter. Occup Med 55:215–226.
Doll R. 1998. Effects of small doses of ionising radiation. J Radiol Prot18:163–174.
Doll R. 2001.Defamatory article byMartinWalker.OccupEnvironMed58:136.
Doll R, Wakeford R. 1997. Risk of childhood cancer from fetalirradiation. Br J Radiol 70:130–139.
Hardell L, Walker MJ, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. 2007.Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. AmJ Ind Med; in press. doi://10.1002/ajim.20357.
Richard Wakeford, PhD*
The Dalton Nuclear Institute
The University of Manchester
Manchester, United Kingdom
240 Wakeford
Recommended