Gov't. Scientists Whistling in the Dark

Top officials at the Centers for Disease Control are blocking publication of a 400-page, peer-reviewed report documenting toxic hot spots in the eight-state Great Lakes region after demoting the scientist who led the study, the Center for Public Integrity reported last week. The House Science and Technology committee is investigating.

In a letter sent last week to CDC director Julie Gerberding, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) questioned the seven-month delay in issuing the report, and asked for details on “disturbing allegations about interference with the work of government scientists” at the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The report, which warns that more than nine million people may face elevated health risks from exposure to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants, was slated for release last July.

The study’s chief author was Christopher De Rosa, the director of ATSDR’s division of toxicology and environmental medicine and, according to the story, “a highly respected scientist with a strong international reputation from his 15 years in charge of the division.” Howard Frumkin, the chief of ATSDR, told him the Great Lakes study was “well below expectations” and removed him from his position. De Rosa is seeking reinstatement to his former position, claiming that Frumkin illegally retaliated against him. CDC officials refused to talk to the Center for Public Integrity.

In another case involving whistleblowers, the Food and Drug Administration is being asked to document all meetings between its staff and companies regulated by the agency. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) called for the change last week in the wake of an investigation that found the agency blindly accepted conflict of interest charges leveled by a private company against one of its scientists. The Center for Veterinary Medicine removed adverse events coordinator Victoria Hampshire from her position in January 2005 after top officials at a Wyeth Pharmaceutical subsidiary lodged the complaint. At the time, Hampshire was preparing to go before an advisory committee where she planned to oppose reintroduction of the company’s ProHeart 6 canine heartworm drug, which triggered severe allergic reactions in some dogs.

At a private meeting two months prior to her reassignment, company officials gave then acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford and chief counsel Dan Troy numerous slides from a private investigator’s report that accused Hampshire of running a website that sold a competitor’s product. Grassley’s investigation found those allegations to be false. Moreover, the FDA’s Office of Internal Affairs used those documents, which Grassley called “rife with error” and easily refuted, to seek a criminal investigation of Hampshire. “Industry representatives ought to have a good working relationship with FDA,” he said, “but under no conditions should the scientific process be compromised by industry pressure.”

Meanwhile, whistleblower protection advocates are hoping the House and Senate will quickly reconcile and approve legislation that would protect scientists like De Rosa and Hampshire. Besides beefing up legal rights that have been largely eviscerated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (it has rejected 179 of 180 whistleblower complaints), the House version would prevent federal agencies from retaliating against scientists who reveal when their superiors distort or suppress government science. The Bush administration has lobbied against both versions of the bill and threatened a veto.

A version of this story first appeared in Integrity in Science Watch, a publication of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.