Group Of More Than 100 Epidemiologists
Say Criticisms Of IARC Monograph Process Are “Unconvincing”
“As a group of
international scientists, we have looked carefully at the charges of
flaws and bias in the hazard evaluations by IARC Working Groups and
found them unconvincing.”
This conclusion has been reached by 126 epidemiologists and scientists
writing in an upcoming issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Led
by Neil Pearce, Aaron Blair, and Paolo Vineis the
multi-authored review of the IARC process used to classify potential
carcinogenic agents looked at four types of criticisms that have been
made about the process. The four categories of criticisms were:
1)
Criticisms of epidemiology as a science
2)
Attacks on the IARC process
3)
Criticisms of specific IARC evaluations
4)
Criticisms of the composition of the IARC workgroups.
None of the criticisms were determined to be well-founded. According
to the report, “Debate and criticism facilitate self-correction and a
check on the validity in science. We are concerned, however, that the
criticisms expressed by a vocal minority regarding the evaluations of
a few agents may promote the denigration of a process that has served
the public and public health well for many decades for reasons which
are not supported by the data.”
Why The Review
The
review was undertaken in response to criticisms of epidemiology in
general, and IARC in particular, which Pearce described to The
Epidemiology Monitor as having “got worse in the last 5-10 years.”
These criticisms have not been occurring in a vacuum, he said, but in
a context of increasing concern about industry-funded attacks. Pearce
should know because his work has been under attack several times over
the years, often from industry related sources, and he has written
before to defend epidemiology and his own work.
What worried Pearce about recent attacks, he told the Monitor, is that
criticisms have been leveled not only against individual studies but
against well-respected institutions such as IARC. “We thought that
IARC was doing a good job,” he said, “so we needed people to look
objectively at it [IARC process].”
Pearce was quick to point out that he and his co-authors are not
against criticism which is important for IARC and for the scientific
process. Criticism is always around he said but when critiques are
published just before the beginning of an IARC process, then this
reflects a more deliberate and calculated type of attack.
Invitations To Review
The
authors of the review were invited to join the process by Pearce,
Blair, and Vineis because they were known to be involved in
occupational and environmental cancer research—a kind of Who’s Who in
that subspecialty. They drew up a list and invited everyone on the
list, excluding IARC employees. Almost no invitees declined the
opportunity to participate in the review, including epidemiologists
and scientists who strongly disagreed with IARC about specific topics,
said Pearce. Everyone ended up supporting the process as the “best
around”. The small number of scientists who have been publicly
critical of the IARC were not invited because ‘they have had their
say’ and it was thought their inclusion would only lead to
polarization and not be productive for the review process.
Each of the 126 co-authors took responsibility for the findings
according to Pearce. All sent comments, many of which led to helpful
revisions. The whole exercise took about 1 year and everyone
contributed something to the final product, he said.
The
paper will appear shortly in Environmental Health Perspectives. To
access the paper after publication, visit:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov ■
|