Integrity in Science
Return to CSPI U.S.
Integrity in Science
Articles, Press Releases, Reports
Keynote Address
—Brian Baird D-WA
Plenary Debate
—"The Data Quality Act and OMB Peer Review Honest Evaluations or New Tools for Manufacturing Doubt and Delay?"
Panel A
—"Misusing Science To Manufacture Doubt and Delay"
Panel B
—"Corporate and Government Suppression of Research"
Rachel Carson Award
—Presentation of Award to Theo Colborn
After Lunch Speaker
—"Industry-Driven Science and the Corruption of Evidence-Based Medicine"
Plenary Panel
—"Science v. Commerce in Medicine"
Panel A
—"Science Journals, Science Journalism and Disclosure"
Panel B
—"The Real Junk Science"
Final Plenary
—"A Program for Reform"


Welcome-Michael Jacobson, Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Introduction-Merrill Goozner, Integrity in Science Project Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Keynote Address-Brian Baird (D-WA)
Representative Baird condemns the corruption of science for political gain and the importance of unbiased science to the democratic process.

Plenary Debate-The Data Quality Act and OMB Peer Review. Honest Evaluations or New Tools for Manufacturing Doubt and Delay?
Proponents and critics of the data quality act and the new OMB peer review process debate whether the new laws prevent regulators from writing rules which protect public health or are a tool for government accountability.
Sean Moulton, Senior Policy Analyst, OMB Watch
Jim Tozzi, Board of Advisors, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
David Michaels, Ph.D., Professor, George Washington School of Medicine

Panel A—Misusing Science to Manufacture Doubt and Delay
Government officials' misuse of science can retard needed regulations or lead to the adoption of substandard rules. Panelists discuss the history of insufficient control of dioxin, mercury, and fine particle emissions and options for improving the regulatory process.
Eric Schaeffer, J.D., Executive Director,Environmental Integrity; former Chief of Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency
Richard W. Clapp, D.Sc., Professor of Public Health, Boston University
Rena Steinzor, J.D., Professor, University of Maryland Law School; Center for Progressive Regulation
David Vladeck, J.D., Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Panel B—Corporate and Government Suppression of Research
Corporate and government suppression of research can obsure public health risks and lead to insufficient and misguided regulation. Panelists discuss examples of manipulation of science surrounding environmental toxins and food standards and their effects on public well being.
Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of California—Berkeley
David Egilman, M.D., MPH, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Community Health, Brown University
David Lewis, Ph.D., Research Microbiologist, and former EPA scientist
Michael Kowalcyk, Safe Tables Our Priority

Rachel Carson Award—Presentation of Award to Theo Colborn
The Center for Science in the Public Interest presents its second annual Rachel Carson Award to Dr. Theodora Emily Colborn for her pioneering and courageous contributions to the field of endocrine disruption.

Industry Driven Science and the Corruption of Evidence-Based Medicine
Arnold Relman, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Plenary Panel—Science vs. Commerce in Medicine
Pharmaceutical companies and patients stand to gain when a life- saving new medication goes to market, but the financial interests of the drug industry are not always aligned with those of consumers who seek safe and effective products. Panelists discuss instances of industry manipulation of clinical trial results and corporate attacks on scientists as well as incentives for industry to act without bias or malice when examining study conclusions.
Ralph A. Horwitz, Dean, Case Western Reserve University
David Healy, Director, Dept. of Psychosocial Medicine, University of Wales
Bruce M. Psaty, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, University of Washington Medical School
Alan Goldhammer, Associate Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association

Panel A—Science Journals, Science Journalism and Disclosure
Disclosure of conflicts of interest is widely seen as a first step toward managing bias in scientific writing. Even so, newspapers and major medical and toxicology journals systematically fail to disclose conflicts, even when they have conflict of interest policies. Panelists discuss the reasons for publications' failure to disclose and potential methods for improving adherence to disclosure policies.
Shannon Brownlee, Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
Mark Seeley, General Counsel, Reed Elsevier plc
Ray Moynihan, Contributing Editor, British Medical Journal
Nils Bruzelius, Science Editor, The Washington Post

Panel B—The Real Junk Science
Panelists discuss examples of junk science, research with flawed methodology or unsupported conclusions, and how it has benefited industry at the expense of public health.
Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., President, National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families
Adam Finkel, Sc.D., Certified Industrial Hygienist Risk Analysis Expert, Senior Safety and Health Adviser, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (Views do not represent the agency)
Ronald Melnick, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
Martin Hoffert, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, New York University

Final Plenary—A Program for Reform
Panelists discuss policy reform agendas and strategies for mobilizing the public to advocate for change.
Henry Kelly, President, Federation of American Scientists
Thomas McGarity, Professor, University of Texas, Law School Center for Progressive Regulation
Jean Fruci, Democratic House Science Committee Staff, Federal Advisory Committee Reform
Richard Condit, General Counsel, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility