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