A rare first edition of the Pharmacopoeia Londinensis from 1618 is among the artifacts held by the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia.
Emma Lee / WHYY
A rare first edition of the Pharmacopoeia Londinensis from 1618 is among the artifacts held by the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia.
Emma Lee / WHYY
Science is supposed to be impartial. Thereâs a trusted method for collecting and analyzing data to test hypotheses. Scientific studies are the foundation for public health and environmental policies. But the Trump administration has not heeded the science when it comes to climate change, and the Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with a controversial rule to limit the use of scientific studies that donât make underlying data public, when writing or revising public health and environmental policies. A 30-day public comment period opened March 3rd, and EPA administrators aim to have the rule finalized by May.
But science has been undermined by industry and corporate interests for years, long before the Trump administration, and with dire consequences.
David Michaels has been studying this phenomenon for a while. Heâs an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University. Heâs also former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) under President Obama, and worked in the Clinton administration as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health at the Department of Energy. Now heâs the author of âThe Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.â
The Allegheny Frontâs Kara Holsopple recently talked with Michaels about his new book for the podcast, Trump on Earth.
Kara Holsopple:Â First, could you describe how you started down this road of looking into misinformation campaigns, and the situation that you faced with nuclear workers exposed to beryllium, which is a metal thatâs toxic to people, as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health at the Department of Energy under the Clinton administration?
David Michaels: We had hundreds of workers who had been made sick by exposure to beryllium, and they got a disease called Chronic Beryllium Disease. Thereâs not really much question about it. We were moving to issue a regulation to protect workers across the weapons complex. The beryllium industry was very concerned. They didnât want more regulation, especially in the private sector, which wouldnât even be covered by the regulation I was putting out.
But I read a number of reports that they issued. They hired scientists to say the evidence just isnât clear enough, and we donât really understand how beryllium causes beryllium disease. [They asked] is it breathing it in, or do we worry about skin contact, as well? They said we really need several more years of research before we can do anything.
I looked at that, said, âwell, thatâs crazy.â You donât wait for more research, you protect people on the basis of the best available evidence. And when I started to pull the string on that, I saw that there are a number of consulting companies whose businesses provide corporate clients with reports and studies that manufacture uncertainty.
I saw memos from Hill+Knowlton Strategies, a public relations firm, saying, âweâve helped other industries stop government agencies or slow them down, and this is how we can do that.â That intrigued me. I could tell it was the tobacco model, and when I started pursuing it, I saw that not just the beryllium industry, but many industries were essentially pursuing what we call the âtobacco playbook,â and using even the same scientists who worked for tobacco to do this sort of work. Iâve been writing about it really since then, which is the early 2000s.
KH: Right, you say that this corporate practice of sowing doubt in science started with the tobacco industry decades ago, and its development of something called âproduct defense.â You say the tobacco industryâs motto was âDoubt is our product.â What is product defense?Â
DM: Product defense really comes out of the criminal justice system. Itâs the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty, and what attorneys do, of course, is represent people in court and try to show that theyâre not guiltyânot necessarily innocentâbut putting holes in the prosecutionâs case that says that theyâre guilty.
The scientists and lawyers who worked for product defense look at chemicals and other hazards the same way that the criminal justice system looks at people. They say, âwe can stop regulation. We can cause enough confusion, and essentially raise questions enough that people will say these chemicals arenât guilty.â So these are scientists whose job it is to defend products. Theyâre businesses, and their business model is to provide exactly what their clients need. So you can always predict exactly what the scientists will say. Theyâll say the evidence isnât there to regulate the product, to protect people from this product.
KH: What are some of the tools of this product defense industry?
DM: One I like to look at is called mercenary re-analysis. Iâm an epidemiologist. You do a study, you design the study, you put out your methods, and then you follow those methods and youâll see what results you get. What industry does is demand the raw data from an epidemiological study, and they can re-analyze it by changing assumptions, by changing the cut points. There are lots of tricks of the trade, and you could turn a positive study into one thatâs negative. Then all of a sudden you have these two studies.
They say, âwell, look, we have opposite studies, opposite conclusions,â and people throw their hands up and say, âwell, what do we really know?â Itâs an unfortunate device, because to take a study thatâs already been done and reanalyze it to find a different result isnât the same validity as the study you did in the first place.
KH: Dark money, and these misinformation campaigns are often revealed much later by lawsuits or gaffes made by corporations. How does the system need to change so that corporate money doesnât have an outsized influence on scientific studies for things like environmental toxins, lead and chemicals and how theyâre eventually regulated?Â
DM:Â Let me give you an example. We need to understand what the long term health effects are of e-cigarettes. We know combustible cigarettes are really dangerous. Itâs great to get people off of them, and to move to vaping or e-cigarettes probably is a great advance. But we donât really understand the actual long-term effects of pulling a mixture of oils, nicotine and flavors into your lungs, then expelling it.
To get that research done, we wouldnât trust the tobacco industry after the long history of tobacco prevarications around science. But whoâs going to do that research?
So I think for all of these toxins, what we need to do is set up a system where the producer pays for the research, because the research has to be done, but itâs done through a system where they donât control which scientists are chosen to do the research, what the methods are, and how the results get interpreted. That way we can really trust the integrity of the science that we need to protect ourselves.
KH: You write that President Trumpâs denial of climate science, and the distrust of scientists and scientific evidence in his administration are not unique, but cut from the same cloth as the past 50 years of Republican policy, where corporate capitalism is pitted against science and intellectualism. What do you mean by that?
DM: The tobacco industry, and then the fossil fuel industry, have poured tons of money into Republican politicians, and also these front groups, like Tea Party groups, that claim that the government is a nanny state thatâs trying to control our lives. Of course, you can only say that if you can also say that the things the government is trying to do are unnecessary.
So the tobacco companies wanted these groups to say that cigarette smoking is not really a problem. The fossil fuel industry wants to say that greenhouse gases are not really a problem. But whatâs happened is that this has gone on for so long, and so many Republicans have embraced it, particularly because the fossil fuel industry has been pouring money into Republican campaigns.
Republican senators, for example, no longer have to beg their constituents for campaign support. They can just get all the money they want from a couple of these big corporations. You buy into it, and it becomes part of your DNA. Then once thatâs the case, you think that people who are raising these issues are wrong.
KH:Â People like you.Â
DM:Â Right. I actually had an experience like that recently. I ran OSHA for more than seven years. I probably know more about OSHA than most anybody in the country, and Iâve come back to being a professor at George Washington University.
So I was asked to testify at a congressional hearing about OSHA, and the panel was three lobbyists or people from industries, and me. One of the Republican congressmen, this fellow Glenn Grothman from Wisconsin, walked into the room and he looked at the panel and said, âOh, the Democrats have invited another professor.â Like, how could I really know anything about OSHA. That was his instinct.
Weâre seeing a lot of that, this idea that public health scientists canât really know anything. Because if we knew anything, then, you know, youâd have some responsibility to address the problems that weâre raising.
KH: So how does doubt about the efficacy and intention of science play out in a moment like weâre experiencing now, with this viral pandemic, where public health and millions of lives depend on good science and trusting scientists?Â
DM:Â You know, anti-science, anti-intellectualism has become part of the Republican DNA. We see it not just in the White House, but on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Thereâs a whole echo chamber out there. When public health scientists started raising this issue, I think President Trump had other reasons. He said, âwell, I donât want to make this a big issue. Itâll look bad for me if this gets out of control. Itâll look like I have poor leadership.â
So he announced that this was a problem that was in control. He said âwe have fifteen cases of coronavirus, itâs gonna go down to zero.â And everybody just sort of bought into that because theyâre used to discarding or rejecting concerns raised by people like me and the epidemiologists around the country. Itâs easy to do that if youâve been doing this for a long time.
It really delayed a response for almost two months, where we could have really moved quickly to address this problem, and we would have had things much more under control. Weâd still have an epidemic, but if you look at the epidemic in South Korea, for example, or Singapore, where they immediately got on the case, and they used all of their resources to track cases and develop a testing program, they flattened their epidemiologic curve much more quickly than â well, we havenât flattened ours at all yet.
We will pay a huge price in terms of deaths of people, and the overwhelming of our health care system. I say this a little bit in jest, but weâre fortunate that the coronavirus doesnât have a lobbyist, because if they were actually lobbying, like the lead industry does or the fossil fuel industry does, it wouldâve taken even longer for the government to come around to saying, âyes, this is a real problem.â
KH: Do you think this erosion of trust in science has trickled down to the general public? Are people cynical about science?Â
DM:Â The polls seem to say so. For many years scientists were considered among the most trusted groups in America. Thatâs decreased a little bit â not as much as a lot of other occupations, but certainly gone down.
This idea that scientists canât agree, and therefore theyâre conflicted or they have their own vested interest, you know, it is a problem, because sometimes thatâs the case right now, because [some] scientists are paid to say certain things.
Reporters and the media play a role in this, as well. They allow this confusion. You know, for many years, well-meaning reporters always said, âwell, thereâs two sides to every story. If a scientist is reporting a study, weâll find someone who doesnât agree.â Theyâll find, often with the help of public relations firms working for these corporations, a corporate scientist who will say, âno, no, the evidence isnât there.â So people read those newspaper articles, and they say, âwell, you know, scientists just canât agree on things. What good are they?â
I think that really does have an impact that in the long run makes people think, âwell, science isnât that useful.â But itâs the most important tool we have to address and shape how weâre going to respond to these crises, not just COVID-19, but the climate crisis. Weâve got a looming crisis of antibiotic resistant bugs â there are lots of issues out there that need good science, and itâs an uphill battle right now.
StateImpact Pennsylvania is a collaboration among WITF, WHYY, and the Allegheny Front. Reporters Reid Frazier, Rachel McDevitt and Susan Phillips cover the commonwealth’s energy economy. Read their reports on this site, and hear them on public radio stations across Pennsylvania.
(listed by story count)
StateImpact Pennsylvania is a collaboration among WITF, WHYY, and the Allegheny Front. Reporters Reid Frazier, Rachel McDevitt and Susan Phillips cover the commonwealth’s energy economy. Read their reports on this site, and hear them on public radio stations across Pennsylvania.
Climate Solutions, a collaboration of news organizations, educational institutions and a theater company, uses engagement, education and storytelling to help central Pennsylvanians toward climate change literacy, resilience and adaptation. Our work will amplify how people are finding solutions to the challenges presented by a warming world.