Subject: Scientists Identify Corporate Structure as Bad for Public
Health de
Many thanks to Paule for item #1.
CONTENTS (1)
CORPORATE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (2) SYNOPSIS OF THE MOVIE,
"THE CORPORATION" (This movie has contributed to people's willingness
to challenge the role of the corporation in society.) (3) FOR
NEWCOMERS: ARTICLE CIRCULATED EARLIER, "SCIENCE UNDER
SIEGE" =================================
(1) CORPORATE
CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Egilman, David and Susanna Rankin Bohme; Corporate
Corruption of Science; International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health special issue; Volume II, Number 4; October - December
2005 http://www.ijoeh.com/
Scientists
Identify Corporate Structure as Bad for Public Health November 15,
2004
Corporate power is a major cause of health problems, according to
the October/December 2005 special issue of the International Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Health. Contributions to the issue reveal
how corporate structure results in pressure to influence science and place
the public at risk from pesticides, lead, asbestos, toxic municipal
sewage sludge, and other harmful substances.
"Occupational and
environmental health diseases are in fact an outcome of a pervasive system of
corporate priority setting, decision making, and influence," state guest
editors David Egilman and Susanna Rankin Bohme. "This system produces disease
because political, economic, regulatory, and ideological norms prioritize
values of wealth and profit over human health and environmental
well-being."
Skip Spitzer, Program Coordinator at PAN North America and a
contributing author to the journal notes that, "In market economies, private
corporations play such a decisive role in the economic sphere that they are
often able to secure more rights than people. Corporations deeply influence
politics, law, media, public relations, science, research, education and
other institutions. It's no surprise that corporate self interest
routinely supersedes social and environmental welfare." In his article "A
Systemic Approach to Occupational and Environmental Health", Spitzer
describes how corporations are part of a "structure of harm", meaning that
the very way in which corporations are structured produces social and
environmental problems and undermines reform. The pressure to compete in the
marketplace and create demand for their products creates incentives for
corporations to shape the political system, the mass media, and science for
commercial ends. Corporations use this power to avoid taking responsibility
for the larger environmental and social impacts of their actions (or
"externalities"), including the public health impacts of developing dangerous
new technologies. Spitzer quotes Reagan administration economist Robert Monks
describing the corporation as "an externalizing machine, the same way that a
shark is a killing machine - no malevolence...just something designed with
sublime efficiency for self-preservation, which it accomplishes without any
capacity to factor in the consequences to others."
This "structure of
harm" creates incentives for corporations to seek political influence over
institutions designed to protect and serve the public good. Corporations
often use this power to influence scientific debates so as to avoid
regulation and litigation. "Science is a key part of this system," note
Egilman and Bohme, "there is a substantial tradition of manipulation of
evidence, data, and analysis ultimately designed to maintain favorable
conditions for industry at both material and ideological levels." Independent
scientists whose findings counter corporate interests often face pitched
battles to obtain funding, publish their research, and gain
academic tenure.
The corporate "structure of harm" undermines health
protections not only domestically, but also by influencing the international
agreements and treaties that shape the global economy. In her article "Who's
Afraid of National Laws?", Erika Rosenthal, a frequent consultant to PAN in
North, Central and South America, identifies how pesticide corporations are
using trade agreements to block proposed bans on pesticides identified as
the worst occupational health hazards in Central America. Through
privileged access to closed-door negotiations, agrichemical corporations
inserted deregulatory mechanisms into the draft Central American Customs
Union and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements
undermine health-based national pesticide registration requirements, weaken
health ministries' role in pesticide control, block marketing of cheaper and
less toxic pesticides, and have a chilling effect on future pesticide
regulation. Rosenthal argues that as long as corporations have privileged
access to trade negotiations and civil society is excluded, the resulting
agreements will benefit special interests at the expense of public
health.
The editors conclude that corporate corruption of science is
widespread and touches many aspects of our lives, as indicated by the range
of articles in the issue. In "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture and
Corporate Engineering in Public Debate", Rajeev Patel, Robert Torres, and
Peter Rosset analyze Monsanto's efforts to convince the public of the safety
of genetically modified crops. Other articles describe how industry pressure
on government agencies such as EPA have influenced cancer research and
resulted in approving toxic municipal sewage sludge as crop
fertilizer.
Corporate corruption of science represents a real threat to
the health and well-being of people and to the environment the world over.
"The negative social impacts of corporate structures deserve a concerted
response on the part of conscientious public health researchers," note
Egilman and Bohme. Spitzer sees this analysis as a call for researchers to
join movements working for fundamental change of corporate structure and
power. "We need to build bigger, more integrated social movements with the
popular wherewithal to make deep change," he states. "This means combining
multiple issues, connecting local work nationally and internationally, and
building long-term change goals into action for more immediate
change."
Source: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Health, http://www.ijoeh.com/
=========================================
(2)
SYNOPSIS OF THE MOVIE, "THE CORPORATION" (This movie has contributed to
people's willingness to challenge the role of the corporation
in society.)
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2 THE
CORPORATION - DETAILED SYNOPSIS In THE CORPORATION, case studies, anecdotes
and true confessions reveal behind-the-scenes tensions and influences in
several corporate and anti-corporate dramas. Each illuminates an aspect of
the corporation's complex character.
Among the 40 interview subjects
are CEOs and top-level executives from a range of industries: oil,
pharmaceutical, computer, tire, manufacturing, public relations, branding,
advertising and undercover marketing; in addition, a Nobel-prize winning
economist, the first management guru, a corporate spy, and a range of
academics, critics, historians and thinkers are interviewed.
A LEGAL
"PERSON" In the mid-1800s the corporation emerged as a legal "person." Imbued
with a "personality" of pure self-interest, the next 100 years saw
the corporation's rise to dominance. The corporation created
unprecedented wealth. But at what cost? The remorseless rationale of
"externalities"-as Milton Friedman explains: the unintended consequences of a
transaction between two parties on a third-is responsible for countless cases
of illness, death, poverty, pollution, exploitation and lies.
THE
PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES To more precisely assess the
"personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using
actual diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the DSM-IV,
the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The
operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social
"personality": It is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and
deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not
suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring
and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity,
clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere.
Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered:
the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the
diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."
MINDSET But what is the
ethical mindset of corporate players? Should the institution or the
individuals within it be held responsible?
The people who work for
corporations may be good people, upstanding citizens in their communities -
but none of that matters when they enter the corporation's world. As Sam
Gibara, Former CEO and Chairman of Goodyear Tire, explains, "If you really
had a free hand, if you really did what you wanted to do that suited your
personal thoughts and your personal priorities, you'd act
differently."
Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, the world's largest
commercial carpet manufacturer, had an environmental epiphany and
re-organized his $1.4 billion company on sustainable principles. His company
may be a beacon of corporate hope, but is it an exception to the
rule?
MONSTROUS OBLIGATIONS A case in point: Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
recounts an exchange between himself (at the time Chairman of Royal Dutch
Shell), his wife, and a motley crew of Earth First activists who arrived on
the doorstep of their country home. The protesters chanted and stretched a
banner over their roof that read, "MURDERERS." The response of the surprised
couple was not to call the police, but to engage their uninvited guests in a
civil dialogue, share concerns about human rights and the environment and
eventually serve them tea on their front lawn. Yet, as the Moody-Stuarts
apologize for not being able to provide soy milk for their vegan critics'
tea, Shell Nigeria is flaring unrivaled amounts of gas, making it one of the
world's single worst sources of pollution. And all the professed concerns
about the environment do not spare Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other activists
from being hanged for opposing Shell's environmental practices in the Niger
Delta.
The Corporation exists to create wealth, and even world disasters
can be profit centers. Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, recounts with
unabashed honesty the mindset of gold traders while the twin towers crushed
their occupants. The first thing that came to their minds, he tells us, was:
"How much is gold up?"
PLANET INC. You'd think that things like
disasters, or the purity of childhood, or even milk, let alone water or air,
would be sacred. But no. Corporations have no built-in limits on what, who,
or how much they can exploit for profit. In the fifteenth century, the
enclosure movement began to put fences around public grazing lands so that
they might be privately owned and exploited. Today, every molecule on the
planet is up for grabs. In a bid to own it all, corporations are patenting
animals, plants, even your DNA.
Around things too precious, vulnerable,
sacred or important to the public interest, governments have, in the past,
drawn protective boundaries against corporate exploitation. Today,
governments are inviting corporations into domains from which they were
previously barred.
PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT The Initiative Corporation
spends $22 billion worldwide placing its clients' advertising in every
imaginable - and some unimaginable - media. One new medium: very young
children. Their "Nag Factor" study dropped jaws in the world of child
psychiatry. It was designed not to help parents cope with their children's
nagging, but to help corporations formulate their ads and promotions so that
children would nag for their products more effectively. Initiative Vice
President Lucy Hughes elaborates: "You can manipulate consumers into wanting,
and therefore buying your products. It's a game."
Today people can become
brands (Martha Stewart). And brands can build cities (Celebration, Florida).
And university students can pay for their educations by shilling on national
television for a credit card company (Chris and Luke). And a corporation even
owns the rights to the popular song "Happy Birthday" (a division of
AOL-Time-Warner). Do you ever get the feeling it's all a bit
much?
Corporations have invested billions to shape public and political
opinion. When they own everything, who will stand for the public
good?
THE PRICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING It turns out that standing for the
public good is an expensive proposition. Ask Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two
investigative reporters fired by Fox News after they refused to water down a
story on rBGH, a controversial synthetic hormone widely used in the United
States (but banned in Europe and Canada) to rev up cows' metabolism and boost
their milk production. Because of the increased production, the cows suffer
from mastitis, a painful infection of the udders. Antibiotics must then be
injected, which find their way into the milk, and ultimately reduce people's
resistance to disease.
Fox demanded that they rewrite the story, and
ultimately fired Akre and Wilson. Akre and Wilson subsequently sued Fox under
Florida's whistle-blower statute. They proved to a jury that the version of
the story Fox would have had them put on the air was false, distorted or
slanted. Akre was awarded $425,000. Then Fox appealed, the verdict was
overturned on a technicality, and Akre lost her award. [For an update on the
case see Disc 2 where we learn that at one point, Jane and Steve became
liable for Fox's $1.8 million court costs, later to be reduced to
$200,000.]
DEMOCRACY LTD. Democracy is a value that the corporation
just doesn't understand. In fact, corporations have often tried to undo
democracy if it is an obstacle to their single-minded drive for profit. From
a 1934 business-backed plot to install a military dictator in the White House
(undone by the integrity of one U.S. Marine Corps General, Smedley Darlington
Butler) to present-day law-drafting, corporations have bought military might,
political muscle and public opinion.
And corporations do not hesitate
to take advantage of democracy's absence either. One of the most shocking
stories of the twentieth century is Edwin Black's recounting IBM's strategic
alliance with Nazi Germany-one that began in 1933 in the first weeks that
Hitler came to power and continued well into World War
II.
FISSURES The corporation may be trying to render governments
impotent, but since the landmark WTO protest in Seattle, a rising wave of
networked individuals and groups have decided to make their voices heard.
Movements to challenge the very foundations of the corporation are afoot: The
corporate charter revocation movement tried to bring down oil giant Unocal; a
groundbreaking ballot initiative in Arcata, California, put the corporate
agenda in the public spotlight in a series of town hall meetings; in Bolivia,
the population fought and won a battle against a huge transnational
corporation brought in by their government to privatize the water system; in
India nearly 99% of the basmati patent of RiceTek was overturned; and W. R.
Grace and the U.S. government's patent on Neem was revoked.
As global
individuals take back local power, a growing re-invigoration of the concept
of citizenship is taking root. It has the power to not only strip the
corporation of its seeming omnipotence, but to create a feeling and an
ideology of democracy that is much more than its mere
institutional version.
THE DVD Along with the groundbreaking
145-minute theatrical version of the film, the two-disc set has eight hours
of never-before-seen footage. All of your favourite heroes and villains are
back. In addition to two commentary tracks, deleted scenes, Q's and A's,
additional languages and descriptive audio for the visually impaired, 165
never seen before clips and updates are sorted "by person" AND "by topic."
Get the details you want to know on the issues you care about. Then, check
out the web links for follow-up research and
action.
=========================================
(3) FOR
NEWCOMERS: ARTICLE CIRCULATED EARLIER, "SCIENCE UNDER
SIEGE"
SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE, RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
#822
An ill wind is gusting through the halls of
science these days: faked research, suppression of unwelcome results,
corruption of science advisory panels, university research falling under the
influence of corporate sponsors, and many other conflicts of
interest.
It's as if science were under siege.
For at least the
last thirty years science has strongly supported the positions taken by
environmental and public health advocates. The proponents of 'business as
usual' have claimed that chemical and nuclear technologies have created only
minor problems or no problems whatsoever -- but time after time science has
shown otherwise. They said global warming was a "chicken little" fantasy.
They said the Earth's ozone shield couldn't possible be harmed. They argued
that asbestos was benign. They said lead in paint and gasoline was
entirely safe. They said harm from hormone-disrupting chemicals was
imaginary. They said a little radioactivity might actually improve your
health. They said human health was constantly and consistently improving
-- until scientific study revealed increases in birth defects,
asthma, diabetes, attention deficits, nervous system disorders, diseases
of the reproductive system, immune system disorders, cancer in
children, and on and on. In each of these cases science showed that
the advocates of 'business as usual' were simply wrong.
Science cannot
solve all our problems or tell us everything we need to know, but it remains
a powerful tool for reaching agreement about the nature of reality (at least
for those parts of reality amenable to scientific inquiry). For the past 30
years, science has shown us unmistakably that we are destroying the natural
systems (and bodily defences) that we ourselves depend upon, so 'business as
usual' is a dead end.
Perhaps this is why science itself is now under
systematic attack by corporate interests. Whatever the underlying reasons, it
seems clear that industry has lined up to discredit science, control the
research agenda, take over the apparatus for scholarly publication
and otherwise undermine the scientific and democratic pursuit of
knowledge in the public interest. Perhaps they see it as their only hope
of defending themselves against the overwhelming scientific evidence
that -- if accepted by the public -- would end 'business as usual' and
set us on a new precautionary path.
The Los Angeles Times reported
July 11 that allegations of faked scientific findings increased 50% between
2003 and 2004.[1] But the Times also noted that the federal Office of
Research Integrity cannot keep up with the rising tide of scientific fakery
because it's budget is far too small. The office received 274 allegations of
scientific fakery in 2004, but was able to complete only 23
investigations.
Corporate suppression of data is now so routine that no
one raises an eyebrow. In the wake of an EPA advisory panel classifying the
Teflon chemical C8 (ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA) as a
"likely carcinogen," reporter Ken Ward Jr. of the Charleston
(W.Va.) Gazette learned that in 1981 DuPont initiated a study to learn
whether exposure to C8 caused birth defects in the children of Teflon
factory workers. When the study found an excess of birth defects in
the children, the study was abandoned and the results filed away
without notifying the federal government. Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) companies must tell the EPA when they find
information "that reasonably supports the conclusion that [a chemical]
presents a substantial risk of injury to health."[2]
Generating Doubt
-- OSHA Gives Up
It is common practice for industry to wage scientific
and public relations war against the regulatory agencies whose job is to
protect public health. The Wall Street Journal reports that PR firm
executives openly admit to hiring university professors to put their names
on ghost-written letters to the editor.[3] The letters are written
by hacks paid to put a corporate "spin" on the science, and the experts
sign their names to lend credence to the spin (and to earn a
fat fee).
Another common practice these days is "seeding the
scientific literature" with bogus results, to create doubt and confusion.
In recent years, corporations have seeded the literature with
false findings related to tobacco, lead, mercury, asbestos, vinyl
chloride, chromium, nickel, benzene, beryllium and others. They cook
the numbers, publish misleading articles in obscure journals, and
then cite their own work to create confusion and doubt.
This strategy
has brought the federal government to its knees. The case of beryllium is
illuminating. Beryllium is a strong, light metal used in nuclear weapons and
nuclear reactors. Beryllium dust is a potent lung toxicant and
carcinogen.
In 1999 the Department of Energy (DOE) set beryllium exposure
levels for federal workers that are ten times as strict as the
general industrial exposure standard set by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). The OSHA standard was set based on
data available in 1949.
When OSHA proposed to tighten its safety
standard for beryllium exposure, to bring it into line with the new standard
set for federal workers, industry was able to create enough doubt and
confusion that OSHA backed off and concluded that "more research was
needed" before a tighter standard could be justified.
A writer in
Scientific American concludes that "OSHA administrators have simply
recognized that establishing new standards is so time and labor-intensive,
and will inevitably call forth such orchestrated opposition from industry,
that it is not worth expending the agency's limited resources on the
effort."[4] Creating confusion and doubt pays off.
Science in the
Private Interest
Chester Douglass -- chairman of the Department of Oral
Health Policy and Epidemiology at Harvard -- is being investigated for
concluding that there is no relationship between fluoride in drinking water
and bone cancer in children. He himself cites research -- described as
the most rigorous to date -- concluding the opposite. The
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which funded
the research with a $1.3 million dollar grant, and Harvard
are investigating. Why would a public health expert skew his results?
Does it matter that Dr. Douglass is the editor of The Colgate Oral
Health Report, a quarterly newsletter published by Colgate-Palmolive,
which makes fluoridated toothpaste?[5] Professor Sheldon Krimsky, author
of Science in the Private Interest, warns that science in the
public interest will increasingly lose out as the entire system favors
a tight collaboration between industry, government and
academia.[6]
Academic scientists are under increasing pressure to find
commercial applications for their research so that their institution can
patent, license and profit from the work. Corporate partnerships and
lucrative consulting deals inject big money into the equation. In 1996,
Sheldon Krimsky analyzed the biomedical literature and found in 34% of
the articles, at least one of the chief authors had a financial
interest in the research. None of these financial interests was disclosed
in the journals. Krimsky said the 34% figure was probably an underestimate
because he couldn't check stock ownership or corporate consulting fees paid
to researchers.[7] No wonder allegations of misconduct by U.S. scientists are
at an all time high. [1] A recent survey of several thousand scientists found
that 33% had committed at least one of ten serious misbehaviors -- like
falsifying data or changing conclusions in response to pressure from a
funding source. Six percent admitted to failing to present data that
contradicted their own previous research.[8]
FDA, NIH
Broken
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) are now so thoroughly beholden to industry
that they are broken, unable to perform their duties to protect the
public. The New York Times reports "the White House and Congress forced
a marriage between the agency [FDA] and industry years ago for the
rich dowry that industry offered." Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner
of operations at the FDA said that the drug approval process is "pretty much
broken down... and has been for some time."[9] The FDA has become so focused
on approving new drugs at the expense of monitoring the ones already on the
market that thousands of people have been put in harm's way by drugs like
Vioxx. One FDA analyst estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000
heart attacks -- killing somewhere between 26,400 and 55,600 people (assuming
30 to 40 percent of heart attacks were fatal).[4, 10]
An investigation
into drug company ties with NIH scientists found that more than half of those
investigated had violated existing policies meant to limit conflict of
interest. Director of the NIH Elias Zerhouni said, "We discovered cases of
employees who consulted with research entities without seeking required
approval, consulted in areas that appeared to conflict with their official
duties, or consulted in situations where the main benefit was the ability of
the employer to invoke the name of NIH as an affiliation." To his credit,
Zerhouni ushered in reforms banning NIH employees from
accepting drug company consulting fees or stock. But congress is now
pressuring him to relent because NIH employees have objected to the
restrictions.[11]
To their credit, many courageous government scientists
are now speaking out about the corruption of science and there have been
a number of high profile firings and resignations ranging from the
Fish and Wildlife Service to NASA where scientists are blowing the
whistle on government abuses of solid science.[12]
Some 6,000
scientists including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science
recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences have signed
the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) statement, "Restoring Scientific
Integrity in Policy Making." The Bush government is certainly not the first
to abuse science, but they have raised the stakes and injected ideology like
no previous administration. The result is scientific advisory panels stacked
with industry hacks, agencies ignoring credible panel recommendations
and concerted efforts to undermine basic environmental and
conservation biology science.[12]
In the words of the UCS, "The
actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine the morale and
compromise the integrity of scientists working for and advising America's
world-class governmental research institutions and agencies... To do so
carries serious implications for the health, safety, and environment of
all Americans."[12]
We have merely scratched the surface here. The
corruption of the scientific enterprise has proceeded very far. In some areas
of scientific endeavor, there are almost no independent researchers
left because nearly every scientist in the field is funded by
corporations with an axe to grind.
Agricultural biotechnology
(genetically engineered food) is one such field of inquiry. The flip side of
that coin is that certain avenues of research have been nearly eliminated by
the funding sources -- for example, researchers say funds to study the health
effects of biotech foods are now almost non- existent. [13]
What does
this all mean for science and society? The public's trust in science will
most certainly continue to erode. When this happens, even honest science is
tarnished and loses its power to protect nature and public health because the
public doesn't believe it. Honest science in the public interest is becoming
an endangered species. And America slides further from democracy by and for
the people.
==========
[1] Martha Mendoza, "Allegations of Fake
Research Hit New High," THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 11, 2005.
[2]
Ken Ward Jr., "DuPont Proposed, Dropped '81 Study of C8, Birth Defects," THE
CHARLESTON GAZETTE, July 10, 2005.
[3] Michael Schroeder, "Some
Professors Take Payments To Express Views," THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, December
10, 2004, pg. B1.
[4] David Michaels, "Doubt Is Their Product, Industry
groups are fighting government regulation by fomenting
scientific uncertainty," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (June 2005) Vol. 29 No. 6,
pg. 96, 6p.
[5] Juliet Eilperin, "Fluoride-Cancer Link May Have
Been Hidden," THE WASHINGTON POST, July 14, 2005.
[6] Sheldon
Krimsky, SCIENCE IN THE PRIVATE INTEREST; HAS THE LURE OF PROFITS CORRUPTED
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH? (New York, Rowman & Littlefield 2003). ISBN
074251479X.
[7] Sheldon Krimsky and L.S. Rothenberg, "Conflict of
Interest Policies in Science and Medical Journals: Editorial Practices
and Author Disclosures," SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS (2001) Vol.
7, pgs. 205-218.
[8] Meredith Wadman, "One in Three Scientists
Confesses to Having Sinned," NATURE (June 9, 2005) Vol. 435,
pgs.718-719.
[9] Gardiner Harris, "Drug Safety System Is Broken, a Top
F.D.A. Official Says," THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 9, 2005.
[10] The
World Health Organization estimates that 39% of all heart attacks globally
are fatal. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR RISK: report of a WHO
meeting, (World Health Organization, Geneva, 9-12 July 2002).
[11]
David Willman, "NIH Inquiry Shows Widespread Ethical Lapses, Lawmaker Says,"
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, July 14, 2005.
[12] SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN
POLICYMAKING; INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S MISUSE OF SCIENCE
(Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2004). And SEE
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN POLICYMAKING; FURTHER INVESTIGATION (Cambridge,
Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2004), both available
at:
Permission to reprint Rachel's is
hereby granted to everyone, though we ask that you not change the contents
and we ask that you give credit. ================================ Email
from: Sandra Finley 306-373-8078 Saskatoon, SK sabest1@sasktel.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.2/170 - Release Date:
11/15/2005