Opioion-----Radiation data misconduct?----scientists stipped oftenure

[Magnu96196@aol.com]

Hi Radlisters,

    Don't know if folks have seen this one, more on ALARA type discussions

Jim Phelps

========================================================
OPINION 

Scientific Integrity and Mainstream Science
By Theodore Rockwell 

In legalese, the words that distinguish good science from bad are
"mainstream" or "generally accepted." This is about as far as the law can
go. This standard places a serious responsibility on the scientific
community to ensure that mainstream science is indeed good science. 

Institutions are scrambling to develop means to monitor and deal with
departures from proper scientific practices. Science reported1 that in
Europe "a rising tide of retracted papers and some high-profile fraud cases
are finally stirring research groups into action ... the very structure of
research institutions might be creating an environment that encourages
research misconduct." The American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) has published a quarterly Professional Ethics Report since
1988, with scores of reports in each issue on events relevant to scientific
ethics. AAAS has also announced a Demonstration Project on Providing
Independent Experts to the Federal Courts and is cosponsoring, with the
U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), a conference in Washington, D.C.,
April 10–11, 2000, on "The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in
Promoting Research Integrity." ORI has decided to "downgrade the role of
ORI in policing scientific misconduct" and issued a "government-wide
research misconduct policy" statement2 that defines misconduct, limiting it
to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism as described therein, and
will "assist institutions unwilling or unable to do their own
investigations [and] continue to review the results of university
investigations and propose sanctions." 

  
 
Illustration: A. Canamucio 
----------
   

Scientists Will Be Held Accountable


Baylor College of Medicine found its molecular biologist Kimon Angelides
guilty of fabricating data, stripped him of tenure, and evicted him from
his lab.3 He sued the university and 14 of its officers and scientists, but
he withdrew the action after the federal appeals board backed Baylor's
findings that Angelides had "committed scientific misconduct." The appeals
board concluded that the evidence showed "not honest error, not preliminary
results that later proved overly optimistic, not even carelessness, but
rather intentional and conscious fraud." 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) took similar action against
its staff biochemist Robert P. Liburdy, finding that Liburdy "deliberately
reported selected data, omitted contradictory data, and falsified
results."4 As a result, Liburdy was forced to retire, withdraw his
findings, and be barred from all federal research for three years. Congress
is pressing the laboratory to return at least some of the money that funded
Liburdy's work, which may dampen the enthusiasm for any laboratory to find
scientific misconduct in its midst. 

Strikingly similar kinds of scientific misconduct seem to be happening in
the radiation area. There are research reports widely cited as supporting
current policy that, on closer scrutiny, can be seen to have conclusions
that are contradicted by their own data. This is because the data have been
improperly manipulated in the same way as the cases of scientific
misconduct cited above, to bring about the desired but unwarranted
conclusion. Such cases, if allowed to stand, tarnish the whole scientific
enterprise. They can, and they will, be challenged. 

An important fact to face here is that there are cases where mainstream
scientific opinion is bad science--where scientific positions are
maintained long after their invalidity becomes clear to any who will
unblinkingly examine the refutory evidence. When reputations and incomes
have been made and maintained by the "established wisdom" and the interests
of funding agencies, there are strong personal and institutional incentives
to hold off any changes as long as possible, pleading that we still do not
know enough for sure, and a little more research money may make the
situation clearer. 

This situation can damage the integrity and credibility of the entire
scientific enterprise if the mainstream opinion is later shown to be
invalid and was under serious challenge by other credible scientists at the
time in question. If opposing views are openly and honestly debated, there
is no problem. The problem arises when the challengers are numerous and
credible, and the challenges are not adequately considered and responded to
by the mainstream science establishment. 


Radiation Protection Standards


Current policy presumes that any dose of ionizing radiation, no matter how
small, can lead to cancer and must be considered hazardous. This policy is
contradicted by a large body of highly credible scientific evidence, but it
provides support and professional benefits for the mainstream of the
radiation protection field. But its continuance creates unwarranted public
fear and hundreds of billions of dollars spent for no discernible public
benefit. People are being scared away from life-saving medical treatments
that involve radiation. People are dying from foodborne pathogens that
could be killed by radiation. Scientists are forced to use less effective
analytical techniques to avoid burdensome regulations associated with
radioactivity. And fertile topsoil less radioactive than good farmland in
Colorado or Norway is being dug up and hauled away for treatment because it
is "radioactive." 

Credible challengers to the policy have become so numerous and so vocal for
so long that mainstreamers now describe the situation as controversial. But
this has not led to the needed examination of the refutory data and open
debate as to its significance. Instead there have been three-year studies
by mainstream committees such as the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements, and the committees on Biological Effects of Radiation.
These committees are staffed by prominent scientists from prestigious
institutions, but they self-select their membership and their successors,
and they carefully exclude all of the many respected scientists whose work
contradicts existing policy and provides replicable, statistically
significant evidence that low-dose radiation is not harmful and is often
beneficial. This evidence is not adequately dealt with in the reports that
these committees produce, which create and support policy. 

The normal procedures for challenging bad science are thwarted in this
situation. Relevant research is reported in peer-reviewed journals and is
formally presented to the committees and directly to the appropriate
government regulatory agencies. But the evidence they present is ignored or
summarily dismissed. The associated professional societies, such as the
American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society, occasionally issue
mild position statements and then back away from any follow-up action.
Conferences of scientific and policy experts are called, but the meetings
are not open and challengers are not invited. Sometimes a representative of
an antinuclear organization such as Greenpeace is invited, but this is a
political move, and their presence adds nothing to resolving the science
issues. 

Proposed radiation regulations are subject to public input. But we find
that although other aspects of a proposed regulation may be discussed, the
question of radiation health effects is considered defined by the review
bodies and is specifically excluded from public challenge. 

So the problem is routing out bad science when the bad science underlies a
mainstream scientific position. Here hope lies in two facts. First, rules
of good science are widely agreed upon, and the bad radiation policy
persists, not because it is well defended as good science but only because
it has never been forced out into the open. Second, although the policy is
defended by the mainstream of the radiation protection community (which has
much to gain personally and professionally from it), the wider scientific
community is excluded. It is reasonable to expect that the mainstreamers
would object, if given a chance. Although the funding of contradictory work
is constrained, there are respected biologists, medical researchers,
statisticians, epidemiologists, and other scientists outside the radiation
protection community who have no conflict of interest in this matter, who
could be expected to judge the issue fairly. They must be brought into the
arena. If this problem is left for too long without a constructive response
from the science community, the public reaction will be to question the
integrity of all of science. 

Several recent actions are accelerating this process. U.S. Senator Pete V.
Domenici (R-N.M.) has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate
and report back by next June. Physicist-lawyer Richard Meserve, who played
a leading constructive role in many of the recent actions to bring good
science into policymaking, has been named chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. From the other side, Energy Secretary William
Richardson announced that radiation is causing cancer and premature deaths
to workers in nuclear plants, implying that scientists have known this for
decades but have covered it up.5 The Energy Department then stated,6 "We
estimate that over the next 30 years, there will be between 250 and 700
radiation-induced cancers, of which about 60 percent will result in death."
This contradicts the position of virtually all responsible scientists in
this area for over 50 years. The time has come for the scientific community
to speak up on this issue. 

  
 
 
----------
  Theodore Rockwell (tedrock@cpcug.org), an engineer with over 50 years in
nuclear power, is a founding officer of the engineering firm MPR Associates
Inc. of Alexandria, Va., and a founding officer of Radiation, Science &
Health, an international public interest group in Needham, Mass. 


References 

1. M. Hagmann, "Scientific misconduct: Europe stresses prevention rather
than cure," Science, 286:2258–9, Dec. 17, 1999. 

2. www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/ 9910_20_2.html 

3. J. Kaiser, "Scientific misconduct: Baylor saga comes to an end,"
Science, 283:1091, 1999. 

4. "Report of the Formal Investigating Committee Inquiring into Alleged
Scientific Misconduct of Dr. Robert P. Liburdy," July 7, 1995. 

5. M.L. Wald, "U.S. acknowledges radiation killed weapons workers," New
York Times, Jan. 29, 2000. 

6. DOE News Release, July 15, 1999. 


----------

  
 The Scientist 14[5]:39, Mar. 6, 2000
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html