April 24, 2001

Dr. Barry Bloom
Dean
Harvard School of Public Health
677 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA. 02115-6092

Re: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

Dear Dean Bloom:

I write to express my professional and ethical objection to the substantial commercial ties the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) has developed. I respectfully submit that such ties can only jeopardize — both in the eyes of the public and press — the integrity of the entire Harvard School of Public Health. Accordingly, I urge you and your colleagues to take action to remedy that problem.

At a minimum, and for ethical reasons alone, the HCRA should disclose at all times and to all parties all relevant information concerning conflicts of interest. Thus, there should be such disclosure whenever a report is issued, testimony is presented to lawmakers or government officials, a speech is delivered, or statements are made to the media. The Public Citizen Report (“Safeguards at Risk,” March 2001) makes it clear that such a policy has not been employed. Moreover, the recent letter from Washington Post reporter David Brown to you demonstrates that the failure of the HCRA to disclose its conflicts adversely affects Harvard’s credibility in the eyes of the press.

More importantly, I respectfully urge the Harvard School of Public Health to sever its relationship with the HCRA. The Center’s ties to industry are so substantial as to undermine its credibility as a bonafide educational institution committed to the search for unbiased truth. The missions of the educational and scholarly endeavors are subverted, in appearance if not in fact, when no fewer than 110 corporations have a funding stake in the workings of the HCRA (the Center has refused to make public the exact amount of such funding). That figure includes funding from 27 chemical companies/foundations, 18 mining and oil and gas companies, 13 pharmaceutical companies, and 13 heavy-industrial entities.

Such industrial presence strongly suggests that the financial interests of the Center’s funders define (directly or indirectly) the character of the Center’s educational interests and its statements to the public. Thus, and not surprisingly, in his letter to you Mr. Brown questioned whether the Center and the School of Public Health could accurately be characterized as “a disinterested voice.” To the same effect, and with ample warrant, the Washington Post now depicts the Center as an “industry-backed” entity. (4-12-01, sect. A, p.1)

Whenever the influence of industry funding is substantial, as it is at the Center, there is likely to be a corresponding loss of academic independence. That loss of independence may manifest itself by way of direct pressure or, and more likely, by way of indirect pressure such as the need to conduct certain studies in certain ways in order to obtain or retain corporate funding in the future. In all of this, the high purpose of the educational mission is either lost or compromised.

Again, I respectfully urge you to take immediate and meaningful action in order to preserve the integrity of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,
 

Michael Jacobson, Ph.D.
Executive Director

cc: Neil L. Rudenstine, President of Harvard University; John D. Graham, Director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Harvard Board of Overseers