Cancer Expert Was Paid $1,500 A Day By Monsanto

[Jcrowley]

Cancer expert was paid by chemical companies
By JULIE WHELDON, Science CorrespondentLast updated at 23:31pm on 8th December 2006

A leading scientist was paid by chemical companies while investigating the cancer risks of their products, it emerged yesterday. Sir Richard Doll became famous in the 1950s when he established the link between smoking and cancer, and so is credited with saving millions of lives.

But yesterday it emerged that Sir Richard, who died last year, had been paid a daily consultancy fee of $1,500 - £765 at today's rates - in the mid-1980s by the U.S. firm Monsanto. Although the company is mainly known for GM crops, at the time it was a major chemical concern.

While being paid by the firm, Sir Richard wrote to a Royal Commission looking into the cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto. He said there was no evidence that the herbicide, sprayed during the Vietnam war, caused cancer.

<snip>

Since his death, Sir Richard's papers have been filed for posterity. They have revealed a document that shows he was paid by Monsanto for years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=421357&in_page_id=1770

[acmavm]

1. Gee, no hint of conflict there, huh?

:sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

2. Context, context, context.

I know that DU has rules about copy large amounts of text from an article, but the story about Sir Richard had another side:

However, colleagues and friends of the celebrated epidemiologist last night leapt to his defence.

Professor John Toy, Cancer Research UK's medical director, said: "In the days when he was publishing, it wasn't automatic for conflicts of interest to be declared in scientific papers. Richard Doll's service to public health has saved millions."

Sir Richard Peto, the Oxford epidemiologist who worked with Sir Richard, said the allegations came from those who wanted to harm his reputation for their own reasons.

"Professor Hardell attacked Richard a lot when he was alive when he could reply and now he is doing it when he is dead and cannot reply,' he said. He added that Sir Richard had always been open about his links with industry and gave all his fees to Green College, Oxford, the postgraduate institution he founded, or to charity.

"It was no secret," he said. "When he tried to give advice to industry then he said he would be a consultant and give the money away.

"We took the view that if you were going to do something that was paid, then you gave the money away so you did not get this kind of accusation. He was careful to avoid conflicts of interest."

So, it is not clear that he had a conflict of interest or that his payment for consultancy colored his conclusions.

[Jcrowley]

7. Context Indeed

Richard Doll, An Epidemiologist Gone Awry
• Testifies on “safety” of toxins.
• Admits Errors in his analyses
• Polluters use his “testimony” to justify emission of toxins

However, over subsequent decades, Doll drastically changed his views and gradually emerged as a major defender of corporate industry interests. This role, still virtually unrecognized, has been reinforced by his key influence in U.S. and other cancer establishments worldwide. In these overlapping roles, Doll has trivialized or dismissed industrial causes of cancer, which he predominantly attributed to faulty lifestyle, particularly smoking. Furthermore, as the leading spokesman for U.K. charities, Doll has insisted that they should focus exclusively on scientific research, and not become involved in prevention research and education (12). Doll’s track record speaks for itself:

<snip>

• In 1982, as a longstanding consultant to Turner & Newall (T&N), the leading U.K. asbestos corporation, Doll gave a speech to workers at one of their largest plants (54). This speech was in response to a TV exposé that forced the Government to reduce occupational exposure limits to an allegedly low level (1f/cc). Doll reassured the workers that the new exposure limit would reduce their lifetime risk of dying from cancer to "a pretty outside chance" of 1 in 40 (2.5%). This, however, is an extremely high risk. Doll also declined to testify on behalf of dying plaintiffs or their bereaved families in civil litigation against asbestos industries. Furthermore, Doll filed a sworn statement in U.S. courts in support of T & N (54).

• In 1983, in support of U.S. and U.K. petrochemical companies, Doll claimed that lead in petroleum vehicle exhaust was not correlated with increased blood lead levels and learning disabilities in children (55). Doll's research had been generously funded by General Motors.

<snip>


• In 1987, Doll dismissed evidence of childhood leukemia clusters near 15 U.K. nuclear power plants (58). Faced with evidence of a 21% excess of lymphoid leukemia in children and young adults living within ten miles of these plants, Doll advanced the novel hypothesis that "over clean" homes of nuclear workers rendered their children susceptible to unidentified leukemia viruses (59).

<snip>

• In a 1988 review, on behalf of the U.S. Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Doll claimed that there was no significant evidence relating occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and brain cancer (62). However, this claim was based on an aggregation of several studies, in some of which the evidence for such association was statistically significant.

More:
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/other/doll.htm

This guy became a paid spokesman for chemical companies doing bad science all the way.

[Buzz Clik]

14. It's pretty easy to smear someone who can no longer defend himself.

I never heard of Doll before this morning, and I have nothing invested in his reputation. However, I cannot see anything constructive coming out of this. Your arguments are 100% one-sided with the single goal of dismantling this man who has received the highest honors for his work and still is held in great regard by giants in his field.

However, reading the very selective excerpts you provide would suggest that he is indefensible. Needless to say, that is simply not true.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. well

to be fair, the article also says he gave away all the money earned.

[Jcrowley]

8. Please see post #7

And go to link to see his track record. He was a premier shill for the chemical companies.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. And some people

think Dr. Epstein, the source of your post, is a flake.

http://www.fumento.com/epames.html

[Jcrowley]

11. Perhaps you could start

a thread on that. Now back to the topic at hand. Could you possibly defend Doll's record as a sycophant for the large chemical companies? His science was awful and the record is out there for all to see.

And of course there are understandable reasons for attacking Epstein's reocrd from the point of view of Big Pharma. It's what they do.


In his 1981 report on causes of cancer mortality in the U.S. (13), in the absence of any scientific evidence, Doll trivialized the role of environmental and occupational causes of cancer. He claimed that occupation was responsible for 4% of mortality rather than at least 20%, as previously admitted by consultants to the American Industrial Health Council of the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (14).

In 1982, as a longstanding consultant to Turner & Newall (T&N), the leading U.K. asbestos corporation, Doll gave a speech to workers at one of their largest plants (54). This speech was in response to a TV exposé that forced the Government to reduce occupational exposure limits to an allegedly low level (1f/cc). Doll reassured the workers that the new exposure limit would reduce their lifetime risk of dying from cancer to "a pretty outside chance" of 1 in 40 (2.5%). This, however, is an extremely high risk. Doll also declined to testify on behalf of dying plaintiffs or their bereaved families in civil litigation against asbestos industries. Furthermore, Doll filed a sworn statement in U.S. courts in support of T & N (54).

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/other/doll.htm

These are factual reports.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. But you're quoting

from a source that is directly contradicted on many of his claims.

And, as has been pointed out, he gave the money away.

And why WOULDN'T he be paid by a company that wanted him to study something? Do science consultants work for free?

I have no idea how good his science is, because I'm not a cancer researcher - but I did easily find a link refuting some of his major claims.

I object to the implication that his work was automatically compromised because he got paid for what he did. Most scientists get paid. AND... he gave the money away, so it wasn't for personal enrichment.

[Buzz Clik]

20. You make excellent points.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the simple act of accepting money to provide advice (consultancy) or funding for research will automatically bias the scientist who is benefitting from the money. Quite literally every scientist working today has received funding from sources that could be construed as having a predetermined hope for the outcome of the research. That by no means can be translated to biased science.

The OP suggests that Doll is filthy with tainted money and sold his scientific objectivity simply because his outlook and conclusions are not in line with the author's point of view and/or some of his conclusions can be held in doubt in light of the most recent findings. Considering the stature of Doll's defenders, I'd suggest that the author of the OP drop this nonsense and find a more productive obsession.

[1932]

15. What about the families of people who suffered from Agent Orange

who might have gotten some help while alive if there weren't scientists like Sir Richard lying about cause and effect?

[malaise]

4. Gee I only hope

he died of cancer.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. gee

what a nice thought.

edit: he died at age 93 after "a short illness", so your hateful wish appears not to have granted.

[Jcrowley]

9. This is inexcusable

Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemicals and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride, used in plastics, of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer - a conclusion with which the World Health Organisation disagrees. Sir Richard's review was used by the manufacturers' trade association to defend the chemical for more than a decade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1967386,00.html

But none of his funding from Monsanto was declared in the article that was eventually published in 1988 as Effects of Exposure to Vinyl Chloride in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health.

The review came to the conclusion that there was no significant extra carcinogenicity associated with the manufacture of vinyl chloride other than in the liver - a fact that was already known. This contradicted a review by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in 1979 had listed vinyl chloride as a human carcinogen, affecting not only the liver but also the brain, lungs and lymphatic system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1967402,00.html

Letter sent to Sir Richard Doll by George Roush Jr, director of Monsanto's medicine and environmental health department, on April 29 1986

Dear Sir Richard:

This letter is for the purpose of extending your Consulting Agreement with Monsanto Company dated May 10, 1979. The Consulting Agreement is hereby extended for an additional one-year period beginning June 1, 1986 and ending May 31, 1987.

During the one year period of this extension your consulting fee shall be $1,500.00 per day. All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement of May 10, 1979 shall remain in effect during this extension period.

If the foregoing meets with your understanding and approval please so indicate by executing this letter in duplicate and returning one of the signed duplicates to us

[1932]

13. I'm so sure this happens often. I wonder how far back this holds the state

of knowledge and science.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Science moves on, whether or not the charges against Doll have any merit.

[1932]

18. I don't think the merits of the charges are in question. He did receive money

from Monsanto, no? And nobody knew about it until now.

There have been cases in federal courts in the US which rely on expert evidence. If people knew that the experts' credibility was placed in doubt by the fact that they were secretly on the payroll of the companies whose profits were jeopardized by their research, juries might have come to different conclusions about Monsanto's responsibility for damages caused by their products.

[Buzz Clik]

21. He received money, but it was not a secret.

Click the link in the OP and read the entire article.

In many court cases, experts are paraded to give their opinions, and they are paid well. If you are suggesting that being paid for providing an opinion turns the expert into a liar, then we need to roll back all the lawsuits in which experts speak.

Keep in mind that Doll's research contributed heavily to the revelation that smoking causes cancer. To suggest that he suddenly became blind to the potential negative health impacts of industrial chemicals cannot be supported.

[1932]

22. It doesn't look like anyone knew $ amount and source.

That's why this is news. His defenders say that people generally knew and that he gave the money to his charity. But this article does not say that people knew the dollar amounts (which they now know thanks to his personal files) and it does look like being on Monsanto's payroll is news, or his critics would have pointed that out in the '80s.

[OzarkDem]

27. Well, not really

Since many of these studies showed no cancer causing connections, industry pressure had prevented much new research from being done. Flawed as they are, these studies stand as the benchmark, with little hope of funding for additional research.

[Buzz Clik]

16. What's inexcusible is your obsession.

What do you hope to accomplish? Nothing but trashing this man.

Are you hoping to open a dialog? Absolutely not.

Have you presented anything that would suggest that Doll knowingly told mistruths or biased his scientific research? Not at all.

This is pure hysteria and deserves nothing but contempt. It's clear you will not be disuaded from this disgusting behavior; therefore, I will leave you to it.

[1932]

19. You don't think that the fact that this sort of thing happens isn't important

to discuss.

Monsanto is pretty much out of legal jeopardy for the damages caused by agent orange, and Doll's research was the kind of thing they relied on at trial to protect them from liability.

Do you think juries knew that the experts were on the defendant's payroll when they were deciding which evidence was credible?

Do you think the truth, now that it's available year later, should be swept under the rug?

[Jcrowley]

28. It seems

what is being avoided here is not only the discussion of the material facts as to Doll's career, he was very influential and controlled the levers to copious amounts of research funds, and his track record as a scientist was horrible and had very real impacts on people's lives.

Why this is relevant to today is that this one case shows the manner in which chemical companies in collusion with corporate scientists can control the debate and the research funds to the detriment of the public health.

Dr. Doll's tale is just one of many and we see the same pattern of irresponsible behavior in the sycophantic scientists who are refuting the science of Global Warming.

I am not obsessed at all or interested in trashing anyone rather pointing out the very clear historical recording the hopes that we can recognize it in today's world and do something about this.

Hysteria is an interesting term.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Nice touch. You'd make a great Freeper.

So, you read only the quoted material in the OP, and wished him a horrible death.

Ever hear of karma, Ace? I'd be careful about the bile that comes out of your mouth.

[KittyWampus]

24. nice, you can only resort to calling others freepers. YOU are the one defending a scientist who

shilled for and made bogus excuses for the chemical companies that are poisioning our bodies and environment.

And that this scientist gave his money away is totally irrelevant to the fact he accepted it in first place and then pronounced various toxic chemicals as safe.

[Kellyiswise]

23. This is merely the tip of a very huge and ugly iceberg ala NIH.

Just a modicum of real journalism would uncover NIH as one of the most corrupt insititutions of US government from stealth immigration system for very SELECTED groups to kickbacks, scientific misconduct, and a welfare system for a slew of marginal scientists. But who cares when we waste 40 billion a day in Iraq?

[KT2000]

25. Open their tax returns

to the public if they are going to be used to establish policy - at least in the US!

This is the way it works. Doctors compete for these dollars.

As I heard it - Sometimes they do not even sign contracts. If they speak in favor of the corporations' products, checks start arriving in the mail. Most doctors figure it out and try to position themselves to be a media contact and keep receiving those checks. When they become trial experts the money really flows!

This is how public health policy is made.

[OzarkDem]

26. Nah, toxic chemicals don't cause cancer

Its because you don't eat enough fruit & veg, doncha know? :sarcasm:

How many people have died and will die because of this kind of corruption?