THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION

TIlE C^7^IYI^
• • . • . • • . • • S. • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • . • . . • . . . . . 0 a ta• • • • • • • a • a • a a • • • • • • • • • • •

Volume 1

No. 3

TASSC Poll of Scientists Shows

Public Confidence
Over the Last Ten Years

Public Confidence Erodes;
Science Used to Fill Political Agenda
The American scientific community is very concerned that
public confidence in scientific research is being seriously eroded
by policy makers who use scientific findings to conform to
political agendas, according to a poll sponsored by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
The poll, conducted by The
Tarrance Group of Houston, Texas,
showed that 62 percent of scientists
believe public confidence in scientific research has decreased in the
last 10 years, and 83 percent agree
that policy makers use science to
achieve their policy goals in controversial issues such as asbestos, pesticides, dioxin, environmental tobacco
smoke or water quality.
The poll also revealed that scientists
believe that44.4 percent of research
projects conducted by government
agencies are done to meet pre-established objectives.
"The poll demonstrates an even
deeper concern than I imagined
over the conduct and use ofgovernment scientific research," said Dr.
Garrey Carruthers, TASSC Chairman. "The results reinforce our
mission, to ensure that sound science is used to make public policy
and emphasizes the need for a setof
scientific principles against which
to hold government research accountable."
Carruthers released the poll results
at a news conference held at The

National Press Club in Washington,
D.C. Ed Goeas, President and CEO
of The Tarrance Group, also attended the news conference and said,
"Overall, researchers are critical of
the need for more stringent adherence to scientific principles and a
thorough review process ofresearch.
These data clearly indicate widespread concern over how scientific
research is conducted. why it is conducted, and how it is used in the
formation of public policy."
"Sixty-eight percent of those interviewed agreed that the scientific community is under more pressure these
days to conduct research to substantiate specificresults because ofobjectives provided or suggested at the
beginning of a project," Goeas said.
Another key finding was that 67 percent of the respondents said scientific research is used to match predetermined viewpoints of what a
government agency is hoping to conclude and that science is too often
used to fulfill a political agenda.
Carruthers said TASSC decided to
conduct the poll to help in its firrmulationofasetofprinciples regarding

Decreased

scientific research and to gauge confidence levels in government use of
scientific research.

Key Findings
•

By a more than two-to-one margin, respondents think the
public's confidence in scientific
research and scientific findings

continued on p. 2

I NIIDE
Letter from the Chairman

4

TASSC Poll ..................................... ... .......... . I
Key Findings .......... ....................... .... ... .. . .

I

How the Survey Was Conducted ........ ... ........ 2
TASSC Issucs
> Guiding Scientific Pnnciples ............... ........ _
TASSC Poll Makes Newc ......... ..._ .............. . 3

TASSC on the Move ........ ........ ............ .._.. . 3

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

T116460138

 THE ADVAiJCEP,IENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION

has decreased (62 percent) versus increased (24 percent) over
the last 10 years.
•

•

•

Six of 10 have an above average
concern over the use of government research. These findings
show that there is a definite concern over the way various levels
of government use scientific research in determining public
policy.

❑

•

67 percent said too often
scientific research is used to
match pre-determined
viewpoints of what a government agency is hoping
to conclude.
65 percent said too often
science is used to fulfill a
political agenda.

Scientific Research is Used
to Most Predetermined Objectives

80%

70%
60%
50%

In a series of "agree/disagree"
statements, respondents showed
strong concern regarding the
use of government science.

TASSC Issues `5
Guiding Scientific
Principles'

83 percentagreed with the statement that policy makers use science to achieve their policy goals
in controversial issues such as
asbestos, pesticides, dioxin, environmental tobacco smoke or
water quality.

10%
After months of research and
0%
development, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) issued its "Five
Guiding Scientific Principles" to of=
fer a standard against which policymakers should measure research.

•

82 percent say the public overreacts to environmental health
threats because they do not understand the underlying scientific research.

•

68 percent say the scientific community is under more pressure
to conduct research to substantiate specific results because of
objectives provided or suggested
at the beginning of a project.

How the Survey
Was Conducted
The surveyors interviewed by telephone 508 medical researchers and
natural scientists in the United States,
with an equal number of interviews
(254 each) completed among medical researchers and natural scientists.
Medical researchers were randomly
sampled from the American Medical
Association's list of physicians who
specialize in research.
Natural scientists were randomly
selected from a Dunhill International
list of scientists and researchers.

40%
30%
20%

The principles, printed in full in an
insert in this issue of The Catalyst,
were developed with assistance from
TASSC member scientists.

"By issuing these principles, we hope
to accomplish one of our key goals,
'Sound Science'," Carruthers said.
"We are offering federal and state
government a yardstick against
which to measure science in public
policy."
Carruthers said plans are being made
to offer these principles to state legislators around the country as a way
to resolve some of the waning of
public confidence in government
research.
The TASSC member scientists who
assisted in drafting our Statement of
Principles are:
Dr. James E. Enstrom, University of
California at Los Angeles School of
Public Health; Dr. Alan Gross of the
Medical University of South Carolina; Dr. Jay Lehr, senior scientist,
Environmental Evaluation Enterprises; Dr. George Levinskas, fellow, director and past president of
the Academy of Toxicological Sci-

s%
Agree

Disagree

Don't know/
No answer

ences; Dr. Floy Lilley, College of
Engineering, University of TeYas.
Also, Dr. Margaret Maxey, professorofBiomedical Engineering, University ofTexas; Dr. Patrick Michaels,
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Dr.
Henry Miller, visiting scholar,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Dr. Stuart F. Spickler, professor, Center for Ethics, Medicine
and Public Issues, Baylor College of
Medicine; and, Dr. Donald Stedman,
Brainerd Phillipson professor of
chemistry, University of Denver.

TASSC On the Move
Chairman Carruthers and other
TASSC members continued their
busy schedules in supportoMASSC's
mission.
At theOhio Cast Metals Association
meeting in October, Dr. Carruthers
called for risk assessment legislation
and cost/benefit analysis to put environmental policy back on track and
restore public confidence in scientific research.
"Government regulation and mandates have become not only
overburdensome but in too manv
cases, ttown right ridiculous. Asen-

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

T196460139

 THE ADVANCEh1ENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
sible approach is to pass legislation
that establishes guidelines for the
government to follow in assessing
risk and what should be done," said
Carruthers.
Carruthers delivered a similar message at other events in recent weeks.
For example, speakingto theAmerican Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC), Carruthers said the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) should put its scientific house
in order before it attempts the major
"new direction" announced recently
by its administrator, Carol Browner.
Ms. Brownerannounced "The Common Sense Initiative," under which
EPA would take an industry-wide
approach to dealing with pollution
rather than its current pollutant-bypollutant approach.
"[ think the EPA is skipping a very
important step," said Dr. Carruthers. "About two years ago," he continued, "a report ofthe Expert Panel
on the Role of Science at EPA said,
'...EPA science is of an uneven quality and the agency's policies and
regulations are frequently perceived
as lacking a strong scientific foundation..."' The report also said EPA
"does not have a coherent scientific
agenda" and that "science should
never be adjusted to fit policy...yet
the perception exists that EPA lacks
adequate safeguards."
The expert panel's report fits also
with the findings in the recentTASSC
poll where scientists said government research too often is pre-determined to fit a political agenda.
Regarding Ms. Browner's initiative,
Dr. Carruthers said "since that report (the expert panel's) was issued,
we have seen nothing that has improved the situation. No steps have
been announced to change how the
science is conducted. In fact, we
haveseen EPAreports criticized even
more so for manipulating the science."
The issues of risk assessment and
sound science highlighted Dr. Car-

ruthers speech to the American
Wood Preservers Institute annual
meeting in September.
Dr. Carruthers also addressed the
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association Environmental Affairs Conference in Annapolis, Mcl.
The conference dealt with current
legislative and regulatory issues in
the environmental area. His panel
was titled, "Alternatives to Household Products: Is this Sound Science?"
Members ofTASSC's Science Advisory Board and Dr. Carruthers participated at the Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium, sponsored by
the Franklin Institute ofTemple L:ni.versitv. The symposium included a
number of presentations from leading scientists on current environmental issues. Dr. Alan Moghissi,
TASSC member, served as symposium chairman and did an outstanding job.
Another recent event was the Arizona Hydrological Society conference that discussed issues in the legal, technical and institutional aspectsofwater resource management
in Arizona and western water states.
TASSC was represented not only by
the Chairman, but also by Dr. Margaret Maxey of the University of
Texas and Dr. Jay Lehr, senior scientist at the Envfronmental Education Enterprises.

vided written testimony at a recent
New York City hearing on legisladon that called for unreasonable restrictions on smoking in buildings.
Sponsors of the legislation cited the
EPA's study on ETS as a reason for
the restrictions. The EPA's study has
been criticized by a number ofscientists and groups, including the Congressional Research Service for lack
of solid scientific basis.

Hedge is a leading authority on indoor air quality issues - actively
researching the issue since 1975.
According to Hedge's testimony:
"Results of studies show little
difference in the effects of alternative smoking policies on indoor air quality issues.. . .
"I believe that the proposed rule
is too restrictive in requiring either a smoking ban or restriction of smoking only to separately ventilated spaces. . . .
[F]acility managers and building owners perhaps should have
discretion in their choice c>fthe
most appropriate policy fin• their
situation."

Dr. Alan Hedge, professor at Cornell
University and member of the
TASSCScienceAdvisorv Board, pro"These data clearh• indicate
widespread concern over how
scientific research is
conducted, why it is conducted.
and how it is used in the
formation of public policy "
Ed Goeas,President and CEO
of the Turrrance Group.
speaking at the National Press
Club in Washinkton. DC

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

T116460940

 THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCiENCE COALITION

Letter from the Chairman
Busy and productive times continue
forTASSC. TASSC recently released
its "Five Guiding Scientific Principles" and a poll we commissioned
to obtain a better understanding of
scientists views regarding government research and sound science.
The results of the poll were even
stronger than I anticipated. When
we started TASSC, we knew there
was a need for such an organization
in this country. The poll's results,
though, tell me that the need is even
greater than I had realized. Clearly,
our nation's scientists are concerned
not only about the integrity of their
research, but also that the public's
confidence in their work is declining, through no fault of the scientists.
As a former elected official, I know
the pressures on various government workers to work toward the
political agendas of those elected.
Politics, though, should never in-

vade the facts and figures world of
science. Experiments and tests provide facts and figures, not fodder for
political debate. When it comes to
scientific research, we cannot allow
political manipulation to creep in,
and the poll shows creeping would
be a light word for what's happening.
As the poll clearly shows, scientists
believe public confidence has gone
way down in the last 10 years. One
of the more surprising numbers to
me in the poll, is that these scientists,
70 percentofwhom have done some
sort ofgovernment research, believe
that nearly half the government scientific projects are done with predetermined objectives laid out. That
is alarming!

make these principles better known
and taking steps to see if state legislatures will adopt them as their own
guiding principles. I want to thank
the scientists who volunteered their
time to help us write these principles
and those scientists who have made
presentations and participated in
events on behalf ofTASSC.

The poll reinforced in us the need
for the "Five Guiding Scientific Principles," a standard against which
policymakers should measure science. We are working on plans to

TASSC
P0 Box 18432

Washington, DC 20036

^.ra^or^.^ t.Fi Zlaa o^.S.^.ra^Sui.rca c:,c
L.^iGZ^ccal^ra F

rr^lc ^a4i^C ?Jcc^aco.ra "

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

Tt1 6460141

 THE At7 JANCEMENT OF SOUVC SCIENCE COALIT'ON

Five Guiding Scientific Principles from
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
Through these principles we express our conviction that the usefulness ofscience as the basis forpublicpolicy decisions is
based on the integrity ofscience. We assert that the objectivity and methods of science must be maintained and
respected. Scientific evidence orstudies used to guide or evaluate public poliry should meet certain standards These
standards, or principles, such as those inscribed here, shall be used to judge as objectively as possible the quality and
validity of scientific research and evidence, specifically in the realm ofpublicpoliry when science is used to create, guide,
affirm, justify or refute policy decisions Only scienti6c evidence and research which is perfonned in accordance with
conventional sound scientific practice, including adherence to the princip/es noficed here, should be used in connection
with theformulation or evaluation ofpub/icpolicy, To ensure thatscience-basedorscience justifiedpolicyis ofthe
highest quality and in the interest of the people it aims to serve and profect, we airn to promote the use ofsound science
in the development and evaluation of such policy,

1. ToTAL METHodoloqicAl
DOCUM ENTATION

tudies that set out to ex
plore specific hypotheses
must include, but are not
limited to, documented protocols, objectives, and methodology that are consistent with
accepted scientific practice and
can be reviewed by qualified
individuals who are not members of the investigative team.

S

• 6efore undertaking a study, a written protocol must be prepared that
documents all necessary and relevant information including, but not
limited to: research objectives, research methods, methvds of data
analysis including levels of statistical significance, bibliographic references, dated amendments.
• All deviations from accepted scientific protocols and procedures shall
be documented and explained in a
written supplemental protocol, including any implications that bear
on the study's quality and integrity.

• Where feasible, research involving
human subjects shall be conducted
on the basis of informed and written
prior consent obtained from individuals from whom information will
be obtained, or about whom information will be used.
• The study, where applicable, shall
have a sample-size large enough to
detect the specified level of statistically significant risk.
• All questionnaires shall have analytical exposure data to support and
validate participants' written or oral
responses.

• The study shall include all available
relevant, credible scientific research
both at the beginning and during
the course of the study (as is reasonable) that would substantially affect
interpretation of the results.

2. COMpREHEN5IVE REVIEW
OF ALL RELEVENT
SUppORTINft
INFORMATION

h report of a study
T e final
shall fully document all
necessary and relevant
information, e.g., research
methods, circumstances that
may have affected the quality
or integrity of data, summary
and analyses of data, conclusions, and implication of study
results including discussion and
doeumentation of the results of
the research that fail to support
pre-stated research hypotheses.
• A study shall attempt to account for
all confounding factors in the process of deriving any and all results.
• A study report must include the results of all possible risk factors that
constitute part of the study's raw
data, and these analyses must be
published as a single report.

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

T1164E0142

 THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCiENCE COALITION

• To clarify terminology, studies that
find statistically significant differences shall be considered to have
positive results, and studies that do
not find statistically significant differences shall be considered to have
negafive results.

• If research findings are associative,
rather than establishing or indicating cause-and-effect, this factshould
be noted prominently and clearly,
and that limitation fully explicated.

TECHNICAL REVIEW

T t he completed study shall
be subjectto scientific and
echnical review to ensure that the abstract, summary,
and conclusions are supported
by the _data, methods, and
analyses, and to ensure that it
upholds conventional sound
scientific practice, including adherence to the principles noticed above.
• The raw data and study results must
be available and subject to replication by qualified researchers outside
the investigative team,
• Study results that are not consistent
with accepted scientific knowledge
must be validated by subsequent
studies before being used as the basis
for the formulation of public policy.

REINTERPRETATIONS Of
OLd DATA WiThOUT NEw
EXpERIMENTAL INOU1Ry
A study based only on

4. PUbLIC COMMUNICATION
3. PREpUbLICATiON

5. REJECTION OF

by RESPONSIdLE
SCI ENTISTS

11 persons involved in
the research protocol
shall be fully responsible for communicating the
study results accurately to the
public when appropriate, and
when the study results have
public policy implications.
• Whereapplicable, publication of the
final results of the study shall include comparative risk analyses,
identification of limitations of the
study, the need for future research,
as well as other relevant information, including factors that may have
affected the quality or integrity of
the results.

reinterpretations of
preexisting data
should be treated critically (as
should all analyses) unless the
conclusions are substantiated
by subsequent experimental
inquiry.
• Meta-analyses of findings from separate research projects shall be conducted only where the protocols,
objectives, and methods of the
projects are similar, the rationale for
using meta-analysis shall be explained and evaluated, and any differences in the protocols, methods,
or findings of the separate projects
shall be fully described, weaknesses
and limitations of meta-analysis
should be clearly discussed for the
date being analyzed.

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
P0 Box 18432
Washington, DC 20036

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nyml0028

Tl9 6460143