You Get What You Pay For

Science is objective, right? The scientific method requires that results be reproducible before they are considered fact. If two scientists testing the same hypothesis by the same methods come up with different results, then either the theory is wrong, or, as they say at the end of nearly every scientific article, more testing is required.

Of course, in the real scientific world, with its conflicting agendas and competing theories, studies on controversial topics almost always come up with varying results, often depending on who sponsored the study. That doesn't mean the world is inherently unknowable. In these cases, scientists who want to be objective must go with what is called the balance of evidence. This is especially true if they work at regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration where decisions have to be made with less than perfect knowledge.

This brings us to a fascinating report in today's Los Angeles Times on a study that just appeared in a government-sponsored environmental health journal on the effects of a common plastic on human hormones. The study evaluated 115 academic studies of bisphenol A or BPA, which is found in virtually everything made of hard plastic and can now be found in the blood of nearly every American.

The analysis showed that 94 of the 115 studies published on BPA in recent years found the chemical mimics estrogen, blocks testosterone and harms lab animals. Many toxicologists are especially concerned that toxics that mimic sex hormones do serious damage to sensitive areas like the brain or sex organs in developing fetuses and children. Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri, author of the study and a long-time proponent of the idea that BPA is harmful, told the Times that the evidence was now overwhelming.

Well, anytime you are dealing with a chemical that is in everything from baby bottles to plastic water containers, you can be sure that the companies involved will be deploying their own scientists. In this case, the American Plastics Council paid the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct its own study (the Harvard Center, by the way, is where John Graham, head of the regulatory affairs office in the Bush administration, came from).

Their analysis, conducted last year, found that the evidence is weak. Vom Saal had an answer for that, too. In his paper, he divided up the studies in his sample into those funded by industry and those funded by government or other non-industry sources.

Here's what he found. Of the 11 studies funded by industry, none found any elevated risk to humans. But of the 104 other studies, over 90 percent showed that the chemical had harmful health effects.

I have no idea if regulators will agree that the jury is no longer out on whether the buildup of BPA in the environment poses a risk to humans. But the "theory" that he who pays the piper calls the tune is starting to look like an incontrovertible scientific fact.

Posted by gooznews at April 13, 2005 06:29 PM