alex berezow BT bak
11 21 txt
2nd 11 21 on sci suppress academic
see miller acsh
new 819 see acsh science, not hype" not to mention fair and balanced
merri ok
pow
tag https://usrtk.org/tag/alex-berezow/
---
yahoo mail 11 22
bacon. Hamburgers. Steak. We’ve been told over and over that these things will kill you — if not from cardiovascular disease, then from cancer. The cancer link has now been debunked, thanks to a new rigorous study that slammed years of shoddy nutritional epidemiology research. The link to cardiovascular disease is probably still real, but like all things in life, if you consume it in moderation, you’ll probably be okay. There are other things to worry about (like the U.S. advancing in the World Cup).
---
miller
A black and white photo of a black and white photo illustrating the potential of CRISPR technology to treat sickle cell disease.
HEALTH
A revolutionary new CRISPR treatment for sickle cell anemia may be imminent
A cure may be on the horizon.
javelin missiles
THE PRESENT
Javelin missiles: Thank DARPA for Ukraine’s success against Russian tanks
Javelin missiles have been an effective force multiplier, the latter-day equivalent of the sling that David used against Goliath.
climate model
THE PRESENT
En-ROADS: A powerful, interactive climate model for predicting temperature rise
Driving Teslas and planting trees are nice, but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to fight climate change.
nuclear power
THE FUTURE
It’s time for a nuclear renaissance
A report from MIT outlines a six-point plan to usher in a new age of nuclear power.
organ transplantation
HEALTH
High-tech production of organs for transplantation is our future
Organ transplantation is in dire need of biotechnological advances. 3D bioprinting and genetic modification of pigs provide a path forward.
HEALTH
Plant-based vaccines can change the vaccine landscape
Vaccines can be grown in and extracted from the leaves of plants.
THE PRESENT
An “interstate water system” could fix the West’s water woes
We have pipelines for oil and natural gas. Why not water?
---
Thom Golab, Media Research Center
Thom Golab | American Council on Science and Healthhttps://www.acsh.org › about-acsh › meet-the-team › th...
Thom Golab is the President of the American Council on Science and Health. ... ACSH, Thom was Vice President for Development at the Media Research Center.
Our Team | American Council on Science and Healthhttps://www.acsh.org › our-team
Thom Golab - President Josh Bloom, Ph.D. - Senior Vice President Cheryl E. Martin - Director of Operations Cameron English, Director of Bio-Sciences Chuck ...
American Council on Science and Health - SourceWatchhttps://www.sourcewatch.org › index.php › American_...
Feb 5, 2020 — Fisher, University of California, San Diego, Emeritus; Thom Golab, Media Research Center; Herbert I. London, London Center for Policy Research ...
American Council on Science and Health - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › American_Council_on...
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a pro-industry advocacy organization ... Thom Golab became president in August 2019.
american councilhttps://www.cga.ct.gov › kiddata › tmy › 2014SB...PDF
Thom Golab. Media Research Center. From: The American Council on Science and Health. Elizabeth M. Whelan, President. Gilbert L. Ross, M.D., Medical Director.
4 pages
Thom Golab - The American Council on Science and..https://www.zoominfo.com › Thom-Golab
President at The American Council on Science and Health · Thom Golab , Media Research Center //acsh.org/our-team · ACSH in the Media: May 2020 | American Council ...
Iowa_Corn_Whats_The_Story_T... - Iowa Corn Growers ...https://www.iowacorn.org › media › cmsPDF
Thom Golab. Media Research ... This publication is based on the peer-reviewed ACSH books ... Executive Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
4 pages
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH - GuideStarhttps://www.guidestar.org › profile
aka ACSH | New York, NY | www.acsh.org ... FOUNDED IN 1978, THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH (ACSH) IS A NATIONAL, ... Mr. Thom and Golab.
Rating for American Council on Science and Health - Charity ...https://www.charitynavigator.org › ein
Social and Public Policy Research | EIN: 13-2911127 | New York NY ... Mission: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a consumer education ...
Rating: 2/4 · ?Review by Charity Navigator
Thom Golab's email & phone | American Council on Science ...https://rocketreach.co › thom-golab-email_19771410
Thom Golab's email address g******@mrc.org | Show email & phone number >>> ... Vice President for Development @ Media Research Center. see more.
---
cmd
....
Coverage of ACSH Ties
The conflict between ACSH's hidden sponsors and the views espoused occasionally rates a mention in media coverage too. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Gloria Cooper wryly commented that the Today Show deserved a "dart" for "failing to meet truth-in-labeling standards." Cooper noted that in a June 12, 2003 segment on the Today Show, Whelan had dismissed the suggestion of New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz that a one percent tax be placed on junk foods: "There is room in life for potato chips and Twinkies and all these other maligned foods if you don't eat huge amounts of them," Whelan said.
"Point well taken", Cooper wrote, "But one that viewers might well have taken with a mindful grain of salt, had they been given at least a clue to the organization that Whelan represents."[4]
Other Examples of Controversy
WaPo 2010: McCaughey and Death Panels
The Washington Post identified ACSH as "an industry-friendly group whose board member Betsy McCaughey helped set off the "death panels" frenzy" in the 2009 health care reform debate.[5]
The misleading claim that the Affordable Care Act established procedures for doctors to serve on death panels spread widely even though it was thoroughly discredited.[6] The claim also shifted focus away from the way in which many for-profit health insurance companies routinely deny coverage for potentially life-saving medicine or procedures, based on fine print in policies and internal insurance company panels about the expense of a particular course of treatment and the chances the person will get better.[7]
Hypocritical Attack on Dr. Mehmet Oz Over Conflicts of Interest
In April 2015, a group of doctors published a letter calling on Columbia University to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from the faculty of its College of Physicians and Surgeons, accusing Oz of "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine," "baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops," and "an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."[8]
Signers on the letter include Gilbert Ross, Acting President and Executive Director of ASCH, and Henry I. Miller, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution (a right-wing think tank physically located on the campus of Stanford University) and a former ASCH board member who was the leading spokesperson in election ads opposing GMO labeling in California (an ad campaign funded through millions of dollars from corporations that manufacture or use GMO products) and helped found a tobacco industry front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.[9]
Dr. Oz has denounced this as a smear campaign.
Dr. Oz has his own TV show on NBC, "The Dr. Oz Show," after becoming a prominent media figure through a series of appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Through that platform, he has repeatedly maintained that the public has a right to know what is in their food and has supported the idea of labeling GMO foods. Other countries have stronger rules than the United States does on GMO products, and many people have raised concerns about some of the GMO products that have been created, particularly products created by Monsanto, an extremely controversial manufacturer.
Dr. Oz was accused of using his show to promote dubious health products in 2014, including facing criticism from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) during a 2014 U.S. Senate hearing examining diet-product ads.[10] McCaskill has received numerous campaign donations from Monsanto employees; Monsanto is located in St. Louis.[11]
ACSH's Ross said in TV comments criticizing Oz, "I don't how much of this he actually has a financial interest in, but I would suspect it's quite a bit."[10]
That interview with ACSH made no mention of its funding from corporate sources that profit from the products and industries ACSH defends, however,[10] such as GMO crops, fracking, and e-cigarettes (see Funding below for more information).
Nor did the news show mention Ross' prior involvement in a scheme that defrauded New York's Medicaid system of $8 million. (Ross lost his medical license in 1995 and received a prison sentence of 46 months, serving 23 months.)[12]
CMD Outlined ACSH Tactics in "Panic Attack"
CMD first described ACSH in its 1994 book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, about how the corporate PR industry and corporate front groups try to persuade the public to ignore health concerns about corporate products and practices. ACSH is one of the groups discussed in that book by CMD founder John Stauber.
CMD profiled ACSH again in 1998, noting that although ACSH styles itself as a "scientific" organization, it does not carry out any independent primary research. Instead, it specializes in generating media advisories that criticize or praise scientists depending on whether they agree with ACSH's views. It has mastered the modern media sound byte, issuing a regular stream of news releases with catchy, quotable phrases responding to hot-button environmental issues. To read more, see the page Panic Attack: ACSH Fears Nothing but Fear Itself.
Since then, CMD has written numerous stories about ACSH's industry ties, including an expose in 2012 about how ACSH was identified by Syngenta as a vehicle for pushing back about concerns about the weedkiller atrazine. Syngenta has funded ACSH (see below). More information about ACSH and Atrazine is available at CMD's AtrazineExposed.org website.
Funding
ACSH stopped disclosing corporate donors early in the 1990's. Corporate donors from its 1991 report can be seen here. Some of its funders have included:
API....
---
irony is dead, he has hypoc tag, and excuse is everyone does it, but others transparent....
no lnx graf
CSH Isn't Industry-Friendly. We're Science-Friendly.
Related articles
If ACSH Is a Corporate Shill, We're Really Bad At It
most frustrating part of being a scientist or science journalist is trying to convince people who have already made up their minds that they have come to the wrong conclusion. Even when presented with data that definitively demonstrates the error in their logic, most people double down, while very few appear willing to reconsider their beliefs.
I have encountered this seemingly intractable problem so many times, that I have become convinced of the truth of the aphorism by Josh Billings (not Mark Twain) that "it is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so." People who "know nothing" are at least teachable; people who "know what ain't so" often are not.
That is the difficult obstacle science communicators face. Even worse, a substantial proportion of people who "know what ain't so" actively undermine the credibility of science and the pursuit of knowledge by engaging in personal defamation, libel, and slander. Today, the most common tactic is to label anybody with whom one disagrees a "corporate shill" or "front group." The intellectually bankrupt shout, "Follow the money!" when they are incapable of making a cogent scientific counterargument. (It should also be noted that everybody has to get their money from somebody. Does that mean every person on the planet is a shill?)
The American Council on Science and Health has been around since 1978. In the span of nearly 40 years, we have managed to irritate a lot of activists and environmentalists who make a living scaring the public over vaccines, GMOs, nuclear power, chemicals, and anything else they think can get them on TV. Our mission is to oppose such nonsense and support evidence-based science and medicine. Hence, our tagline: Science. Not Hype.
Predictably, we have been vilified as a "pro-industry front group" by the usual anti-science suspects: Dr. Oz, Greenpeace, Mother Jones, NRDC, U.S. Right to Know, and SourceWatch, among others. The problem with their argument (other than the fact it is ad hominem) is that, if it really was true that ACSH is a corporate shill, we are really, really bad at it.
Take a look at some of the things we've said publicly.
"Kratom: The supplement that will kill Godzilla."
"'Brain training' games may be just fancy placebos."
Honestly, who says stuff like that? We do. Even though there is an awful lot of money (to the tune of billions of dollars) to be made peddling vitamins, organic food, alternative medicine, brain-training games, motivational speakers, and other nonsense, we reject all of it in favor of evidence-based science and health.
If we were corporate shills, why would we do that?
Tags:
Academic Bias Against Industry Is Toxic Hypocrisy
Bernie Sanders, Don't Call Scientists in Pharmaceutical Industry 'Crooks'
FDA Uses Authority To Remove Salmonella-Tainted Organic Kratom Products From Shelves
With Orrin Hatch Retiring, Alternative Medicine Is Losing Its Biggest Senate Supporter
By Alex Berezow, PhD — June 18, 2019
---
no lnx graf jun 2019
ACSH Isn't Industry-Friendly. We're Science-Friendly.
It's mildly amusing that ACSH is referred to as "industry-friendly." That term, which is applied to us by friend and foe alike, is based on a half-truth. And half-truths are the worst kind of "truths" because they're actually lies.
The American Council on Science and Health was founded in 1978 "by a group of scientists with a singular focus: to publicly support evidence-based science and medicine." Importantly, "We are not a trade association. We do not represent any industry."
However, good science comes from many different places, including industry. Industry research cannot and should not be written off because, according to R&D Magazine, industry is responsible for funding nearly $376 billion of the total $581 billion that our country will spend on research in 2019. In other words, about 2/3 of all R&D in the United States is paid for by industry. Without it, research would come to a grinding halt.
When we evaluate the quality of a scientific paper or policy, we rarely ask, "Who paid for it?" Instead, we ask, "Is this evidence-based?" It simply doesn't matter to us if the research or policy proposal originated in industry, government, or academia.
Therefore, anyone who says we're "pro-industry" clearly has never read our work carefully. The people who have read our work carefully -- such as those who represent the organic, dietary supplement, and alternative medicine industries -- absolutely hate our guts. It's for a good reason, too.
Why the Organic Industry Hates ACSH [oh no, it's Big Eggplant!]
The organic industry is wealthy, powerful, and growing. In 2017, sales in the U.S. totaled nearly $50 billion, up over 6% from the previous year. The Organic Trade Association openly brags about this. (Could you imagine the backlash if Big Pharma bragged about its revenues?)
:{:{}:
}:
But ACSH never jumped aboard the bandwagon, even though there is a lot of money to be made. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence to support the consumption of organic food. It isn't safer, healthier, tastier, or better for the environment compared to regular food. In fact, research suggests it's worse for the environment because yields are lower.
Likewise, the global dietary supplement and alternative medicine industries are supposed to be $349 billion and $211 billion, respectively, by 2026. (There is probably some overlap between those two figures.) Yet, we are staunchly opposed to both. If you are a healthy adult without some sort of nutritional deficiency, you do not need a dietary supplement. Besides, the industry is poorly regulated, which is why some products (like kratom) are flat-out dangerous and others (like "all natural," magical boner honey) are spiked with Viagra.
Our opposition to alternative medicine is rooted in similar objections. It is poorly regulated, few of its touted "cures" actually work, and some of them are even dangerous.
:{:{}:
}:
And despite what our critics say, we've gone after Big Pharma, too. When AstraZeneca used a quirk of chemistry to unethically profit from that little purple pill called Nexium, Dr. Josh Bloom criticized it as a "money grab." ACSH also has been critical of Purdue Pharma, which lied about the addictive potential of OxyContin.
The bottom line is this: If we're industry shills, we're extraordinarily bad at it. If you wish to call us "evidence shills," however, we'll happily claim that moniker.
tag sci funding
lnx
The organic industry is wealthy, powerful, and growing. In 2017, sales in the U.S. totaled nearly $50 billion, up over 6% from the previous year. The Organic Trade Association openly brags about this. (Could you imagine the backlash if Big Pharma bragged about its revenues?)
But ACSH never jumped aboard the bandwagon, even though there is a lot of money to be made. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence to support the consumption of organic food. It isn't safer, healthier, tastier, or better for the environment compared to regular food. In fact, research suggests it's worse for the environment because yields are lower.
Likewise, the global dietary supplement and alternative medicine industries are supposed to be $349 billion and $211 billion, respectively, by 2026. (There is probably some overlap between those two figures.) Yet, we are staunchly opposed to both. If you are a healthy adult without some sort of nutritional deficiency, you do not need a dietary supplement. Besides, the industry is poorly regulated, which is why some products (like kratom) are flat-out dangerous and others (like "all natural," magical boner honey) are spiked with Viagra.
Our opposition to alternative medicine is rooted in similar objections. It is poorly regulated, few of its touted "cures" actually work, and some of them are even dangerous.
And despite what our critics say, we've gone after Big Pharma, too. When AstraZeneca used a quirk of chemistry to unethically profit from that little purple pill called Nexium, Dr. Josh Bloom criticized it as a "money grab." ACSH also has been critical of Purdue Pharma, which lied about the addictive potential of OxyContin.
The bottom line is this: If we're industry shills, we're extraordinarily bad at it. If you wish to call us "evidence shills," however, we'll happily claim that moniker.
---
orig target: just title enough?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat9219
no lnx 15 cites
Regulate to reduce chemical mixture risk
ANDREAS KORTENKAMP AND MICHAEL FAUST
SCIENCE
•
20 Jul 2018
•
Vol 361, Issue 6399
•
pp. 224-226
•
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat9219
Abstract
Humans and wildlife are continuously exposed to multiple chemicals from different sources and via different routes, both simultaneously and in sequence. Scientific evidence for heightened toxicity from such mixtures is mounting, yet regulation is lagging behind. Ensuring appropriate regulation of chemical mixture risks will require stronger legal stimuli as well as close integration of different parts of the regulatory systems in order to meet the data and testing requirements for mixture risk assessment.
---
attack 9/18
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/04/stinking-pathetic-double-standard-heart-scientific-journals-13377
no lnx
there is a stinking, pathetic double standard at the heart of scientific publishing, as well as science communication in general:
Any person who is affiliated with industry in any capacity whatsoever -- ranging from the substantial (e.g., research collaboration) to the utterly trivial (e.g., once having said something nice about Monsanto) -- is considered unreliable at best and a paid, filthy liar at worst.
Unless, of course, that person works for the environmental or organic industry. Those people are saints.
This isn't an exaggeration. Science journals have very clear standards for conflict of interest disclosures. If a scientist, for example, publishes a paper about a new drug -- and also holds stock in a company that makes that drug -- the scientist has to disclose that. Period. It doesn't mean the research is incorrect or biased; it is simply a courtesy to the reader to know that the scientist has a financial interest in a particular outcome.
But that standard is not applied equally to all scientists. Environmental scientists, for example, many of whom actually make money on the side through consulting (often for the government), are rarely required to disclose it. A recent opinion published in the journal Science serves as a case-in-point.
The paper, titled "Regulate to reduce chemical mixture risk," was co-authored by Michael Faust, who operates a consultancy (Faust & Backhaus Environmental Consulting). What does his consultancy do? Well, it makes money by advising the government on what sort of chemicals need to be regulated.
In other words, Dr. Faust makes money on a topic that Science let him write about. That needs to be plainly stated as a financial conflict of interest. It was not.
To complicate matters, Dr. Faust's business partner, Dr. Thomas Backhaus, has a long record of publishing papers without disclosing his financial conflict of interest. (When I pointed that out on Twitter, Dr. Backhaus deleted his consultancy's website, sometime around June 14, 2018. This saga will be featured in an upcoming article.)
As a result of all this, I submitted a letter to the editor of Science. It is copied below in its entirety:
Dear Editor,
Your recent publication of a Perspective titled “Regulate to reduce chemical mixture risk” is deeply troubling.
One of the authors, Dr. Michael Faust, operates a consulting firm called Faust & Backhaus. According to the firm’s website (fb-envico.com) – which was deleted around June 14, 2018 – Dr. Faust "provides consulting services… in the field of chemical hazard, risk assessment and regulation." In other words, Dr. Faust makes money by providing his expertise to others.
That is perfectly fine work – and I would likely do the same if I were in his place – but it indubitably constitutes a disclosable financial conflict of interest. Yet, there is no COI disclosure in the published article, which is in direct violation of Science’s stated policy on conflicts of interest:
"All Science Journals require manuscripts to be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of any past and present affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships related to the reported research that might raise questions about possible sources of bias."
The reason this is deeply troubling is because there is a clear double standard in scientific publishing. It is simply unfathomable that a Monsanto scientist could get away with publishing an article without a clear COI disclosure, assuming he or she was allowed to publish at all.
The unfortunate reality is that industry science is deemed to be “tainted,” but only if it is of the pharmaceutical, biotech, agricultural, or chemical variety. The consulting industry, particularly environmental consulting, is not subject to the same scrutiny. It’s almost as if some sort of “health halo” surrounds environmental consultants, exempting them from the norms and standards that we expect from all other scientists.
In future, I would request that Science applies its conflict of interest standards equally to all parties.
Science declined to publish the letter. On the upside, the rejection notice indicated that my complaint was serious enough to notify other editors that they totally blew it: "Although we are not planning to publish it, we have forwarded a copy of it to the appropriate editors for their information."
At least that's something, I suppose.
Tags:
science journalism science journals Science Communication science policy scientific journals ethics conflict of interest
---
https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757-aaas-reassessing-award-to-public-interest-scientists
press release announcing award to Sri Lankan researchers is suppressed
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) says it's "reassessing" its previous decision to give the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to two Sri Lankan scientists who uncovered an association between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease in farmers in areas with hard water.
In a series of peer-reviewed papers, Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana presented their hypothesis that glyphosate, marketed mostly by Monsanto as Roundup, was transporting arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, causing chronic kidney disease.
Just a few days ago, on 4 February, the AAAS announced it was giving the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana, whom it characterised as "Two public health researchers who battled powerful corporate interests to uncover the deadly effects of industrial herbicides, solving a medical mystery and protecting the health of farming communities across the world".
The AAAS press release continued, "Drs. Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, a herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries."
In a strange reversal, by 6 February, the AAAS had removed its press release from the Internet – but not before GMWatch republished it. You can read it here.
In response to a Twitter storm from defenders and foes of glyphosate, the AAAS tweeted, "We are taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented next week as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection."
Who exactly were the people who voiced these "concerns"? We know who one of them was: Kevin Folta, the University of Florida promoter of GMOs and pesticides, and a member of the AAAS. On 5 FebruaryFolta wrote a blog post which was republished on the website of the Genetic Literacy Project, under the heading, AAAS fumble? Prestigious scientists’ organization endorses ‘data-less’ study suggesting links between glyphosate and kidney disease in Sri Lanka.
Citing the Sri Lankan authors' first paper, Folta wrote, "The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a semi-well-crafted hypothesis that could be tested."
However, Folta's claim that there are "no data" in the paper is false.There are plenty of data in this and the authors' follow-up papers – from epidemiological and case-control studies, as well as geographical surveys – that support the idea that glyphosate herbicides should be withdrawn from use as a precautionary measure until they can be proven safe.
Are these data conclusive? No. They point to an association. It's true that the link between glyphosate exposure and chronic kidney disease will always remain a "hypothesis" until it is proven in controlled long-term animal feeding studies. Such studies would count as the "experiments" that Folta complains haven't been done. The truth is that they are unlikely to be done, due to the massive expense and the unwillingness of industry and governments to fund studies that could show that they were responsible for exposing people to poisons over many years.
Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, asFolta admits, have in no way overstated their case. They are conservative and careful in forming their conclusions.
:{:{ }:
The AAAS's press release likely overstated things in calling glyphosate herbicides "deadly" and "lethal", as such words tend to imply acute toxicants that kill with immediate effect. It would be more accurate to call them slow poisons, though there is little doubt that the end result of exposures can be "deadly".}:
But a less than ideal choice of words on the part of the author of a press release is an argument for modifying the press release, not reconsidering an award given to honest public interest researchers, particularly ones who have already been the victims of industry-linked intimidation.
And in the case of this particular award, the conclusiveness of the researchers' findings on glyphosate is irrelevant. As Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, said on Twitter, "Whether or not the link between glyphosate (or formulation) and kidney disease is right misses the point. A scientific freedom award is given for persecution. If you only give it for proven science, it would be delayed decades and it would only benefit those who persecute."
Folta's record
Now let's look at the record of their accuser. Kevin Folta took a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to promote GMOs and took steps to avoid disclosing it to the public, while all the time falsely telling the public that he had "nothing to do with Monsanto".
Folta has allowedan agrochemical industry PR firm to ghostwrite for him, but then denied it.The PR firm ghostwrote answers to questions on GMOs, which were then published on the industry's public relations website, GMO Answers, under Folta's name.
He had to stand down as Chair of his university department after his then wife accused him of violent abuse. She also accused him of taking money forconsulting for Bayer.He was deserted by several of his former close associates after that turned out to be true. He has also publicly defended drunk driving and published advice on how to get away with it.
Finally, although Folta has no known medical or toxicology background, he regularly pontificates on food and chemical safety as if he were an expert, often inaccurately. And in his defence of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, Folta has not only made a series of false claims,but irresponsibly, has even drunk it publicly, supposedly to demonstrate its "harmlessness”.
The AAAS's record
Let's hope the AAAS stands up to the likes of Folta – and stands by its decision to honour the Sri Lankan scientists, who have endured too much victimisation already for their brave work.
The AAAS has a mixed record when it comes to public interest issues. In 2013 the AAAS's board of directors issued a statement opposing the labelling of GM foods in the US. The statement argued that such labelling “can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers”. The AAAS was at the time chaired by Nina Fedoroff, who has close ties to the GMO industry.
But in an incident that showed that the AAAS is not monolithic but contains scientists who do not toe the GMO lobby's line, a group of scientists and physicians that included many long-standing AAAS members condemned the AAAS board of directors’ statement as “an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions”. They pointed to evidence showing that Roundup, the herbicide used on most GM crops, could pose risks that consumers might reasonably want to avoid.
Sadly, the AAAS board seems more likely than its membership to have the power to decide on the fate of the award that was to be given to the Sri Lankan scientists. Whatever they decide, the row kicked up by the antics of the likes of Folta has served to bring the risks of glyphosate herbicides to the notice of a wider public.
If the AAAS does decide to withdraw its award to the Sri Lankan scientists, that will send a clear message to the public about the suppression of science. Ironically, of course, it was the now-suppressed AAAS press release which noted that jeopardizing the profits of the glyphosate industry has come with serious “consequences” for Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana.
---
---
thugswarm? led to ban in sev countries of course no update on actual award
Sarath Gunatilake & Channa Jayasumana
sci prevails
- the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has formally named Sri Lankan scientists Channa Jayasumana and Sarath Gunatilake the recipients of its 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.
- The pair had been named the recipients in February for their work linking glyphosate, the main chemical in the weed killer Roundup, to chronic kidney disease, but the decision was suspended before the award ceremony over concerns raised by other scientists.
- Jayasumana said at the time he suspected there had been pressure from the agrochemical lobby to undermine their research.
- He told Mongabay that the lengthy peer review ordered by the AAAS following the suspension had vindicated his and Gunatilake’s work and showed that “science has prevailed.”
COLOMBO — Science prevailing over politics: That’s how a researcher who was snubbed for a high-profile award earlier this year has characterized the decision to finally recognize his achievements in highlighting a deadly public health problem in rural Sri Lanka.
Channa Jayasumana and Sarath Gunatilake were to have been conferred the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February. But two days after it announced them as the award recipients, the AAAS suspended its decision, citing concerns raised by other scientists about the pair’s work linking the use of a popular weed killer to chronic kidney disease.
At the time, the AAAS said it would address those concerns through a peer review and subsequently evaluate the award status.
That lengthy process has now concluded, Jayasumana told Mongabay on Nov. 15, and has vindicated him and Gunatilake, who are now formally listed on the AAAS website as the recipients of the 2019 award.
Jayasumana said the AAAS had written to him informing him of the review committee’s findings and “considered us suitable to be justly recognized.” He and Gunatilake have long made the case that the chemical glyphosate, best known as the main ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup, plays a key role in transporting heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, leading to high rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in farming communities.
At the time of the snub, Jayasumana told Mongabay he suspected that the agrochemical lobby had “negatively influence[d] the emerging scientific evidence linking one of Sri Lanka’s worst public health problems to the agrochemical industry.”
This latest reversal, he said, showed that the research was sound.
“Science has prevailed,” Jayasumana said. “That’s why, after certain groups opposed our selection and undermined our professional work, the research work has been upheld as credible.”
He added the pair might only be presented with the award next year, but that what mattered was the vote of confidence from their fellow scientists.
“It’s important to us because we highlighted a public health issue of immense importance to Sri Lanka, and that has been recognized by AAAS as deserving the scientific freedom and responsibility award,” Jayasumana said.
On its website, the AAAS said, “The 2019 award was given to Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana who investigated a possible connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease under challenging circumstances.”
The language is more cautious that in its initial announcement on Feb. 4 (now inaccessible but archived elsewhere), where the AAAS referred to the Sri Lankan scientists as “public health researchers who battled powerful corporate interests to uncover the deadly effects of industrial herbicides.”
The award is handed out annually to individuals and organizations “whose exemplary actions have demonstrated scientific freedom and/or responsibility in challenging circumstances,” and comes with a $5,000 prize.
---
twt
recipients of the AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom & Responsibility: Drs. Sarath Gunatilake & Channa Jayasumana who battled corporate interests while determining the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that claimed tens of thousands of lives. https://fcld.ly/hfs19n1
---
---
related articles
Editor at Journal 'Science' Doubles Down on Double Standard
Top 10 Junk Science and Bogus Health Claims ACSH Debunked in 2020
Glyphosate-gate: IARC's Scientific Fraud
Academic Bias Against Industry Is Toxic Hypocrisy
ACSH in the Media: Fat Tuesday Edition
---
Editors at Journal 'Science' Call Me a Corporate Shill
Alex Berezow, PhD — February 12, 2020
I pitched a column to the journal Science titled, "How I Became a Junk Science Debunker." It was initially accepted and went through two months (and nine rounds) of editing. At the last moment, however, the column was spiked by senior editor Tim Appenzeller (pictured). Why? Because I'm a corporate shill, of course.
[pix of ltr]
every decent science writer has, at some point in his or her career, been called a "corporate shill." It's a rite of passage.
If a science writer defends GMOs as safe and effective, he's called a Monsanto shill. If he says that vaccines are also safe and effective, he's a shill for Big Pharma. Defending America's conventional farmers results in being labeled a shill for Big Ag or Big Dairy. Stating the objective truth that our food supply is relatively safe results in being called a shill for Big Food. There's no way around it. If a science writer defends good science, he's called a shill.
The cretins making such accusations are the usual suspects: Anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO(rons), Kremlin propagandists, environmental activists, conspiracy theory websites like SourceWatch, the New York Times, food fad zealots, the New York Times, anonymous internet trolls, and the New York Times. (Occasionally, the New York Times,the New York Times, the New York Times, and people named Carey, as well.)
What is completely unexpected is to see the "corporate shill" accusation coming from one of the world's most preeminent science journals. Yet, that just happened to me.
Editors at Journal 'Science' Call Me a Corporate Shill
The journal Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), features a weekly column in which scientists write about challenges they faced and overcame during their careers.
I pitched a column in December, initially accepted by associate editor Dr. Katie Langin, titled, "How I Became a Junk Science Debunker." It detailed my journey from earning a PhD in microbiology to founding RealClearScience to landing at ACSH. During a follow-up phone call on January 31, Dr. Langin said that she was "fascinated" by my career path.
Finally, after two months and nine revisions (and, I might add, roughly 20 hours of work), the article was ready for publication. (You can read it here.) However, at the last minute, it was spiked by senior editor Tim Appenzeller. Why? Well, I'm a corporate shill, of course1. See the screenshot of the email below:
ACSH is controversial "because it has accepted money from corporations." Uh-huh. The journal Science itself proudly solicits money from corporations, boasting that its expensive ads provide the "marketing solutions" and brand enhancement necessary to "accomplish your company's goals." Science is literally begging to be a corporate shill.
[screenshot adverts]
this is now a story all by itself. In a written communication, an employee of Science tells me that corporate money is controversial, while Science shamelessly solicits it.
Now, Dr. Langin and Mr. Appenzeller need to answer some questions. I sent them both the following:
1) The Science Careers page has published columns by scientists who work or worked for industry, one of them rather prominently titled, "Three lessons from industry that I’m taking back to academia." So, your stated reason to reject my article ("corporate money") is false. What's the real reason for the rejection? Is it political?
2) The journal Science itself happily accepts corporate donations in the form of advertising revenue. Please explain this contradiction.
3) Do you believe that corporate science is inherently untrustworthy? If so, then why does Science publish papers written by industry co-authors?
4) Do you believe that ACSH is dishonest or untrustworthy? Do you believe that I am dishonest or untrustworthy? If so, why?
5) During the editing process, you added an anti-conservative insult to my career story, which I asked you to remove. Are anti-conservative sympathies part of the culture at Science and AAAS?2
I gave them 24 hours to respond. Let's see how honest they are3.
Notes
(1) This is incredibly ironic, as my column specifically discussed how ad hominem attacks such as "corporate shill" are one of the many challenges that science writers face.
(2) During the editing process, Dr. Langin added an insult aimed at conservatives, which I asked her to remove. In one segment of my column, I listed several insults directed at me over the years -- liar, vaccine pusher, corporate shill. She added in "liberal egghead," assuming that all my critics were on the Right. They are not. In fact, they are mostly on the Left.
(3) Update: February 12, 2010 @ 3:55 pm ET. Just as I suspected, they aren't honest, although I'm surprised Tim Appenzeller responded. (Dr. Langin did not.) His response, along with my comments, are published here.
tags
junk science science AAAS media bias ad hominem attacks hypocrisy logical fallacies
mostly recap?]media bias
February 12, 2020
:{:{}:
Thescientific publishing industry is thoroughly dishonest and corrupt, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the journal Science are now also a part of the problem. Here's a disturbing case in point.
}:
journal Science publishes a weekly column in which scientists write about various challenges they have faced in their careers. I submitted my story about how I became a junk science debunker, and it was initially accepted for publication.
Yet, after two months of work and nine revisions, the column (which now can be read here) was spiked at the last minute by senior editor Tim Appenzeller. Mr. Appenzeller, who holds a bachelor's degree in English and has no formal training in science, heads up the news division at the journal. I was told that ACSH is controversial "because it has accepted money from corporations," and therefore, Science refused to publish my article. (See story here.)
Of course, Science publishes papers from industry scientists and gleefully begs corporations to send them money, so I had a few questions of my own that I submitted to Mr. Appenzeller:
1) The Science Careers page has published columns by scientists who work or worked for industry, one of them rather prominently titled, "Three lessons from industry that I’m taking back to academia." So, your stated reason to reject my article ("corporate money") is false. What's the real reason for the rejection? Is it political?
2) The journal Science itself happily accepts corporate donations in the form of advertising revenue. Please explain this contradiction.
3) Do you believe that corporate science is inherently untrustworthy? If so, then why does Science publish papers written by industry co-authors?
4) Do you believe that ACSH is dishonest or untrustworthy? Do you believe that I am dishonest or untrustworthy? If so, why?
5) During the editing process -- 9 revisions, to be precise -- [the associate editor] added an anti-conservative insult to my career story, which I asked her to remove. Are anti-conservative sympathies part of the culture at Science and AAAS?
To my surprise, he answered my email. But, as I suspected, he was neither honest nor did he answer the hardest questions, specifically #1 and #2. What follows is his response, with emphasis and footnotes added. Following his response is my commentary.
Dear Dr. Berezow,
I understand your annoyance. I’m sorry we (Katie and I) put you through those revisions before deciding against publishing your column. The reasons are as she said: ACSH has been the focus of controversy, and your association with it would undoubtedly have led to heated discussions if we had published the column. We’re not afraid of controversy (1), as you might know from the stories that appear in Science’s news section. But the Working Life column is about personal career journeys, and your message might well have been lost in the commotion about ACSH (2) and allegations (on which we have no position) that some of its positions reflect the interests of its funders. (3)
So no, this has nothing to do with politics or anti-conservative bias. Science is as concerned about junk science as you are; we’ve published many stories about the damage done by vaccine skeptics and climate deniers, and our coverage has emphasized that many concerns raised byanti-GMO activistsare not based on available evidence (4).
Nor do we have any reason to think that you are untrustworthy, or that industry-funded science is automatically suspect.
The “anti-conservative insult” you refer to was an editing mistake, which you had a chance to correct during revision. We would not intentionally introduce bias into anyone’s article.
Best regards
Tim
My commentary:
(1) They are not afraid of controversy, unless that controversy involves "corporations." Then, they hide.
(2) Because my message might have been lost in a controversy that he fabricated, it's better not to publish it at all. Makes sense.
(3) The allegations made about my organization are complete lies and distortions. We are unabashedly pro-vaccine, pro-GMO, pro-medicine, and pro-technology. We oppose junk science, alternative medicine, and snake oil salesmen. In short, we are pro-science, not pro-industry. (We believe all science is great, be it from academia, industry, or government.) If Science is incapable of having a position on that, then the journal is cowardly and should be closed down, and Mr. Appenzeller should be pulling espresso shots at a drive-through coffee stand. Let's finally put that English degree to its intended use.
(4) Right, Science cares about junk science and GMOs. That's why AAAS gave an award to two anti-glyphosate conspiracy theorists. (The award was "reassessed" after a massive outcry from scientists on Twitter.)
There are two more important points to add:
First, science journalists claim to want transparency. I have always been fully transparent about who I am and what I do. Yet, those of us who are transparent are accused of having a conflict of interest. That's non-sensical.
Second, it should be noted that Science has no problem publishing blatant conflicts of interest. For instance, Science once published an article by a consultant who makes money by consulting for the government on chemical regulations. The topic of his article? The need for more chemical regulations. That's a smack-you-in-the-face obvious example of a self-dealing financial conflict of interest. *Science* didn't even bother to mention it.
What Do Other Scientists Think?
I asked some of my friends in science communication what they thought of Mr. Appenzeller's response. The best one goes to a PhD geneticist who asked for anonymity because of his penchant for unvarnished, undiplomatic truth-telling:
"That's the most chickensh** ludicrous dollop of fetid apologetics I've ever seen."
Big points for creativity. Here are how others responded: [cami ryan and 2]
The scientific publishing industry is thoroughly corrupt, and AAAS and Science are now also a part of the problem. If and when all government-funded research is mandated to be released free of charge upon publication, journals like Science may go out of business. Good riddance.
===
2/20 - 4 = 2016
note: This column was originally submitted and initially accepted for publication by an associate editor at the journal Science. After two months of work and nine revisions, it was spiked at the last moment by a senior editor. (Read about the controversy here.) What follows is the ninth revision.
When I first embarked on a career as a science writer, I was brimming with confidence. I assumed that my Ph.D. in microbiology would convey a certain level of authority, that readers would view me as a respected, trusted source of information. I also thought that my scientific background would give me the knowledge necessary to beat back unfounded rumors about science that were circulating online—for instance, about the safety of vaccines and genetically modified organisms. As a freshly minted Ph.D., I imagined that I could go out into the world, write about science, and quickly make a difference. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
I didn’t go to grad school thinking that I wanted to be a science writer. I imagined that I’d toil away in a laboratory for the rest of my career, bravely working with dangerous microbes—a vision that I’d harbored since high school. But that career path became less and less appealing the further I got in my Ph.D. program.
I wasn’t as adept in the lab as I had thought I would be, which had an enormous impact on my confidence. I took failure personally, concluding that I wasn’t a very good scientist. As the years wore on, I also grew weary working on the same molecule day in and day out. It felt as though I was going to school to learn more and more about less and less.
After 4 years, I published my first paper. That should have been a moment of pure jubilation. But instead, the experience left me feeling demotivated because so much time, effort, and failed experiments went into a single publication. I wasn’t excited to get back to the bench and work on experiments that would lead to another paper. I wanted to leave grad school—the sooner the better. It was then that I realized that while I loved learning about science,I didn’t love doing science.
But the idea of quitting didn’t appeal to me. Not that far in. So, I toughed it out another 2 years and finished my Ph.D. During my final year, I began thinking about and investigating career opportunities away from the bench. I long had a talent and interest in writing, so a career in science communication was at the top of my list.
During grad school, I often read stories on a political news aggregator website called RealClearPolitics. Going out on a limb, I contacted one of its founders and pitched the idea of establishing a sister website that would aggregate the web’s best science news and analysis. Much to my delight and astonishment, he hired me. So, when I graduated, I became the founding editor of RealClearScience—a job that required me to select external content to feature on our website and to write my own articles.
I was excited to get out of the lab and set out on a different path. But the job was a bit harder than I imagined. I was expected to have an answer for just about any scientific topic under the sun, from astrophysics to zoology. I was also inundated with questions such as, “Could there be life on that exoplanet I saw in the news?” My microbiology training didn’t equip me with the knowledge necessary to answer most of these questions. So, I spent considerable effort learning as much as I could about other scientific disciplines. A grasp of black holes, as it turns out, doesn’t always come naturally to microbiologists.
I was also frustrated when my articles were misinterpreted or taken out of context. For instance, when I defended vaccines, some readers didn’t pay attention to the science I was presenting. Instead, they wrote to accuse me of being in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry—calling me a liar, a vaccine pusher, and a corporate shill. Because of my Ph.D., some readers also viewed me as an “egghead” who could not be trusted. It felt as though no amount of logic could convince them otherwise, and that took some of the wind out of my sails.
I carried on, though, buoyed by the thought that it would all be worth it if I could change a single person’s mind. I also found the job to be a good fit for me personally, as I enjoyed learning about a variety of topics and figuring out how to communicate them to the public.
Four years ago, I started a new job at a science andconsumer advocacy nonprofit, [acsh?] which has a stated aim to separate fact from fiction in public discussions about science and technology. I now spend even more time tackling controversial topics head on—trying to present the best science and to debunk dubious scientific claims online. I’m still inundated with mountains of hate mail, including an occasional death threat. But I love my work and am glad that I made a leap to a new career path. Childhood dreams, I’ve come to learn, aren’t always all they’re cracked up to be.
===
Now That The Dr. Oz Show Has Been Canceled, Here Are 5 Favorite Guests I'll Miss
Conspiracy Fantasy Camp, We Continue To Expose Fake News & More Media Appearances
Newsweek Journalist Loses His Mind, Time-Traveling Radioactivity And More Media Links
DeSmogBlog: Climate Website Is Headed by Anti-Vaxxer Brendan DeMelle
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/04/06/sourcewatch-website-conspiracy-theorists-run-lawyer-lisa-graves-11093
today, it seems that honest disagreement just isn't possible. Social media, which has become a sewage pipe of political hyper-partisanship and unscientific propaganda, magnifies this disturbing trend. If two otherwise intelligent people disagree on something, accusations of being a liar, fraud, or paid shill are quick to follow.
Compounding this problem is the fact that half of Americans believe in at least one conspiracy theory. Instead of ushering in a Second Enlightenment, it appears the Information Age has turned us into paranoid cynics who perceive dark forces controlling world events. Such is the state of our culture in 2017.
Taking advantage of this toxic mindset are websites like SourceWatch, a site that receives a lot of "dark money" (i.e., money given through industry-connected foundations so it can hypocritically accuse others of taking corporate money). The website is like a politicized, unscientific version of Wikipedia; volunteers, rather than qualified experts, write smear articles about people they don't like. According to it1, we are a part of the grand pharma/chemical/agriculture conspiracy that is poisoning America.
The Weird World of SourceWatch
A look at the site's bizarre logo gives an insight into how they think. The logo implies that companies like Monsanto and BP are secretly controlling Fox News. How realistic is that?
It's not at all. In 2015, Fox News brought in about $2.3 billion in revenues, which nearly doubled CNN's revenues and more than quadrupled MSNBC's. Fox isn't hurting for cash, despite Bill O'Reilly's best efforts.
SourceWatch Knows How Fundraising Works
SourceWatch, which certainly knows how to raise money2, lies about how fundraising works.
First, it peddles the notion that their fundraising is holy and righteous, while the fundraising of others is dirty and contaminated. Second, SourceWatch perpetuates the myth that the groups it disagrees with, like ACSH, alter their opinions and distort facts in order to raise money from industry. In reality, it's the exact opposite. Fundraisers raise money from people who already agree with the mission of the group.
Churches raise money from believers, charities raise money from humanitarians, Republicans raise money fromconservatives, Democrats raise money from liberals -- and The Center for Media and Democracy (which publishes SourceWatch) raises money from anti-technology, anti-corporate activists.
SourceWatch Activists Don't Understand Science
Reading through the website, one thing becomes immediately clear: The volunteer bloggers know absolutely nothing about science. Articles that are strictly about scientific topics, such as biotechnology and glyphosate, are appallingly lopsided, poorly sourced, and embarrassingly out-of-date. And as a clever Redditor pointed out, a person who serves on the policy board of the Organic Consumers Association, which provides the corporate funding for the US Right To Know anti-GMO group that promotes Sourcewatch as well, helped write the article on Monsanto, which makes GMOs. That's strange, given SourceWatch's ostensible concern for conflicts of interest.
Unsurprisingly, SourceWatch is an arm of the left-wing, anti-corporate "watchdog" group Center for Media and Democracy. The executive director, Lisa Graves, is a former Clinton administration lawyer with no scientific training who once worked for progressive Sen. Patrick Leahy. Her partisan credentials are impeccable.
That's why all she ever talks about is money. In what has to be a pathological case of projection, Ms. Graves just assumes that money corrupts scientists the same way it corrupts her friends in politics. She doesn't understand that scientists, like our team at ACSH, know that good science is good science, regardless if it was paid for by academia or industry. Honest (or dishonest) people can work for both. The only thing that matters is the quality of the scientific work.
But lawyers and anti-science activists don't think like that. Because they are untrained, they are incapable of analyzing the science, so they do the only thing they know how to do: Make baseless accusations against others and engage in the argumentum ad aurum fallacy. And this time-tested methodology of libeling industry scientists works quite well; even NYU "journalists" do it.
Here is a typical passage on SourceWatch about ACSH:
Numerous ACSH publications (that do not disclose the corporations that have funded the organization) take positions attacking public concerns about various corporate products and practices, such as genetically modified foods (GMOs), pesticides, herbicides, and more, and have sought to downplay concerns raised by scientists and consumers.
This sentence is singularly impressive for its ability to cram so many false assumptions and half-truths into such a small space.
All non-profits maintain donor anonymity. Confidentiality is considered a crucial part of ethical fundraising. Not only does Ms. Graves engage in the exact same behavior, she is also accusing others of acting ethically. That's an incredibly odd argument to be making.
All pro-science groups, including ACSH, wholeheartedly support GMOs and pesticides, regardless of who the donors are. The reason is because the scientific consensus on GMOs is abundantly clear: They are safe and effective. Similarly, when used at levels deemed safe by the EPA, pesticides are also safe and effective.
SourceWatch: A Website for Conspiracy Theorists
The bottom line is that SourceWatch is precisely what you would expect for a website that is operated by partisan political activists: It is completely science-free and obsessed with money. If we lived 300 years ago, SourceWatch would be warning us about the Illuminati.
Notes
(1) Sorry, I refuse to link to this.
(2) The Center for Media and Democracy had a $1 million budget in 2014.
tags graves cmd...
==
2013
wow
acsh 2013
bodman
api
tirad fdn fracking
bristol myers, safwe cog 3x?
bayercropsci
syngnta
3m
mcD's
altria
am chem c
previous am bev, pepsi, pharma
monsanto
FM kirby brit am tobacco
dow agro'
exxon
lorrilard, pfizer
reynolds am PM
direct mial
long list of active leads bradly basf
dezenhall
conoco
pharma
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/809483/acsh-financial-summary.pdf
==
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014
BS berezow
he first director ofIARC(the International Agency for Research on Cancer), Dr. John Higginson, was also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health Those were the glory days of IARC, which was founded for the purpose of identifying human carcinogens for further study and to guide health policy.
Unfortunately, much has changed since 1965. Fifty-two years after its inception, IARC has become a fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring people than identifying actual health threats. Any organization that declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium has entirely lost its way.
Things started to unravel for IARC over a popular herbicide called glyphosate, which it considers a "probable human carcinogen." Every major science and regulatory body disagrees, including the U.S. EPA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Even the World Health Organization, which is the parent of IARC, believes that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer. What is going on?
We now have an answer. Thanks largely to the investigative work of David Zaruk on Science 2.0, The Times reports that Christopher Portier, a key IARC advisor who lobbied to have glyphosate listed as a carcinogen, accepted $160,000 from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by suing glyphosate manufacturers. Mr. Portier's failure to disclose such an obvious conflict of interest has exploded into a textbook case of scientific fraud.
Glyphosate-gate: A Case of Scientific Fraud
It gets worse. Reuters reports that evidence that glyphosate was harmless was intentionally edited out of an IARC monograph. The monograph also distorted other studies it cited, for instance, by concluding that the research found a link between glyphosate and cancer when the opposite was true. Furthermore, Reuters writes that "the agency won't say who made the changes or why." Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the edits. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.
Truly, it is difficult to overstate the seriousness of what IARC and Mr. Portier have done. As Dr. Zaruk writes for his Risk-Monger site, such behavior undermines not only the World Health Organization but the scientific enterprise itself. How can people trust health advice when the regulators who dispense it can be bought off by trial lawyers?
Sometimes, Money Matters
At ACSH, we believe that good science is good regardless of who pays for it -- be it academia, the government, non-profits, or industry. Scientific research must be judged on its merits alone. That's why people who cry, "Corporate shill!" are little more than conspiracy theorists.
However, bad science is another issue entirely. The vast majority of the time, bad science is promulgated by researchers or journalists who aren't good at their jobs or don't know any better. Occasionally, bad science is promoted by people who are being bought off. This is one of those times.
IARC has severely and perhaps irreparably damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Besides, given the sheer number of regulatory bureaucrats who already exist in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere, IARC's role is redundant and only serves to add confusion rather than clarity.
It ought to be defunded and disbanded and we are recommending the U.S. government do just that.
==
---
https://twitter.com/cgseife/status/1063137589375447041
some lost
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
Some former bloggers expressed concern about the purchase by
@science2_0
. Rightly so, and not just because they posted embarrassing Nazi-sympathetic and antisemitic nonsense.
Quote Tweet
Josh Rosenau
@JoshRosenau
- Jul 9, 2018
Replying to @HankCampbell @YetAnotherJon and 6 others
Hank I cannot be the only ex-Sber who will absolutely not grant any rights for anything I’ve written to run beside speculations about the “Jewish Question” and how Hitler “help[ed] Jews to leave Germany.” If you don’t see the problem that’s…interesting.
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
A step back. In 2008, back when
@scienceblogs
was popular, a man named
@hankcampbell
founded a for-profit corporation, ION Publications, LLC. Hank apparently launched a few low-quality "science blogging" websites of his own: http://sciblogs.com, http://sciencecodex.com...
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
... and http://scientificblogging.com. Not deceptive at all -- who would confuse http://scientificblogging.com/sciblogs.com with http://scienceblogs.com, I ask you? Eventually, http://scienceblogging.com turned into http://Science20.com.
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Science Blogs - definition, and a history
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
So what was the purpose of ION Publications and all these sites? Well,
@ACSHorg
, a nonprofit org that's inordinately attached to spreading the word about how safe
@monsanto
's products are, says that it's a "website development service" that increases traffic to ACSH's website.
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
As it happens, the president of
@acshorg
is
@hankcampbell
, who, in his role as president is busy paying
@hankcampbell
's ION Publications $60,000 for promotional activities.
Charles Seife
@cgseife
·
Nov 15, 2018
Last year,
@science2_0
went nonprofit, apparently not long before they acquired the
@scienceblogs
name. (Presumably, whoever gave financial backing for the acquisition got a nice tax deduction.) They revealed their founding document, only after I reported them to the IRS...
Charles Seife
@cgseife
(correx... after I *THREATENED* to report them to the IRS.)
10:32 AM · Nov 15, 2018·Twitter Web Client
---
july 2016
RealClearScience was launched in October 2010. The RealClear family, headed by founders John McIntyre and Tom Bevan, took a gamble and hired me, a freshly minted PhD in microbiology, to take the helm of a new science journalism website. I owe the beginning of my professional career to them, and I am happy to report that I believe their gamble paid off.
In the nearly six years that I have been here, the site has received 16 million visitors representing 238 nations and territories. We even had one visitor each from Tuvalu, Christmas Island, and North Korea. We aren’t sure who the North Korean was, but we have our suspicions.
But far more important than traffic are my colleagues. I have been blessed with two of the most talented, witty, and personable writers I know, Ross Pomeroy and Tom Hartsfield. This site would never have been successful without them. Additionally, I had the honor of working alongside some of the sharpest minds in foreign policy atRealClearWorld: Kevin Sullivan, Greg Scoblete, Joel Weickgenant, and Sam Chi. Jeremy Lott, the former founding editor of RealClearReligion(which was launched on the same day as RealClearScience), has become a good friend.
Amazingly, though the three of us at RealClearScience subscribe to different political ideologies, I cannot think of a single scientific issue upon which we disagreed. That’s because we valued data and scientific analysis above political ideology. We hope that we successfully conveyed this to you, our readers, because it is the value upon which we built and operated RealClearScience.
Because of our insistence on speaking the truth (as best we understood it), we occasionally rubbed people the wrong way – like that time we insulted the City of Portland. In the process, we hope that we helped you learn and made you think and occasionally laugh.
To those of you who are interested in following my next steps, I have taken a position at the American Council on Science and Health as the Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science. I will continue to ply my trade as a journalist and writer, delivering the soundest science news to the best of my ability.
Best wishes to all of you.
Alex Berezow, PhD
Founding Editor, RealClearScience
---
little under five years ago, I wrote my farewell article for RealClearScience. Today, I find myself writing another such article, this time for the American Council on Science and Health.
In May 2016, I was hired by ACSH to assist in its mission "to publicly support evidence-based science and medicine and to debunk junk science and exaggerated health scares." Founded in 1978 by the late Beth Whelan, ACSH has had tremendous success in fulfilling its mission, and I'm proud to have been a part of it.
I like to think that my tenure contributed to this success, though "success" is often a tricky thing to measure in the Internet Age. If we measure success by website traffic, we grew several-fold. If we measure success by media mentions, we were published in or cited by nearly every major media outlet -- The New York Times, USA Today, BBC News, Yahoo News, MSN, and Business Insider, just to name a few. We were frequently on the radio and occasionally on TV. If we measure success by our enemies list, there are more than a handful of anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, and anti-technology activists who don't like us very much. We irritated the right people, like Dr. Oz.
Speaking of people, it's precisely the people of ACSH that made this organization a special place to work. I was blessed to have two tremendous colleagues alongside me on the editorial team, Dr. Josh Bloom and Dr. Chuck Dinerstein. Josh is one of the funniest and most irreverent people I have ever met. Through our collaboration here, we have developed a close personal friendship. Chuck is, as a former colleague of ours once noted, "the smartest person in the room." If you have a question, he has an answer, and it's usually better than yours.
I also benefited from the leadership at ACSH. President Thom Golabput his trust in the editorial team's expertise, and we were allowed to do our work unimpeded. (I've learned that having the complete trust of your boss is one of the best assets to have in a job.) The Board of Trustees, especially Steve Whelan, Nigel Bark, and Steven Modzelewski, played crucial support roles for which all of us are extremely grateful.
Additionally, there are people behind the scenes who help ensure that ACSH operates smoothly, Cheryl Martin and Erik Lief. Cheryl has been head of operations for roughly 40 years, so it's way past time that she be promoted to "Queen of ACSH." Erik helped handle media inquiries.
Of course, none of this is possible without our readers and donors, so I want to thank all of you, as well.
As for me, I'm heading into a slightly different career, one I hope is as enriching as this one has been
---
11 21 grab acsh
Health Scares Vs Health Threats
Thank You, Trial Lawyers, For Protecting Us from the Scourge of Baby Powder
Scientists say that talcum baby powder doesn't cause cancer. Trial lawyers say it does. As usual, the lawyers win. Scientists, common sense, and Americans lose.
Read more
Coronavirus: Fear of a Pandemic, or a Pandemic of Fear?
We must eliminate both. Here's one group's plan to do that.
Read more
95% of Baby Food Tainted with Toxic Metals? Don't Panic
The Centers for Disease Control says that the “American food supply is among the safest in the world.” But a read of some recent news reports about toxic metals in baby food may have you feeling somewhat concerned. So what's really the state of the supermarket aisle? Let's take a closer look.
Read more
Everything Goes to Pot: Myths Are Driving FDA, CDC Vaping Policy
While an investigation is underway into the exact nature of the problem, so far the likeliest explanation is that improper use of vaping devices has led to illness, or the death, of some users. But that sort of nuance isn't governing the thinking of the FDA or CDC officials, both of which are allowing myths and fearmongering to drive their policies and public statements.
Read more
Precautionary Principle:We Must Ban Driving to Whole Foods
Better safe than sorry. That's a great lesson for a child when a parent explains why she should wear a helmet when riding her bicycle. But that refrain makes for terrible public health policy.
Read more
CDC Misleads by Calling E-Cigarettes a 'Tobacco Product'
The CDC says "tobacco use by youth is rising." If that were to be true, it'd be horrible -- but it's not. Cigarette use is down. The only reason the CDC can make this claim is because the agency considers e-cigarettes and vaping devices -- which only contain nicotine -- to be tobacco products. This is misleading and undermines public health.
Read more
AAAS Runs Dishonest Glyphosate Story, Then Deletes It. Is Politics to Blame?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one of the foremost pro-science organizations in the world. Not only does it advocate for good science and science policy, it publishes Science, the prestigious journal read globally by millions. Unfortunately, AAAS has gotten a bit weird in recent months.
Read more
UK Parliament Endorses E-Cigarettes to Help Smokers. Will U.S. Follow?
U.S. public health agencies struggle to endorse an obvious solution to a true public health menace. Hopefully, the UK Parliament will provide a much-needed boost to the forces of common sense.
Read more
Glyphosateand Pesticides: Et Tu, Live Science?
Normally a reliable source of information, Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.
Read more
CNN's Christiane Amanpour Misleads on Flint Water Crisis [recall BSS elsewhere on pb]
The recent reporting on Flint's water crisis by CNN's Christiane Amanpour has a tenuous grasp of the data and the reality.
Read more
New Study Refutes the 'Wine Will Kill You' Nonsense
A few weeks ago, a paper claimed that an extra glass of wine will shorten your life. The story circled the globe in minutes. A new paper, with better methodology, concluded what we all knew: Moderate alcohol consumption can be integrated into a healthy lifestyle. It, however, won't receive nearly as much attention as the sensationalist report. Such is the power of the academic PR hype machine combined with a gullible, sensationalist press.
Read more
Diarrhea Outbreaks: A Glimpse into Anti-Vaxxer Utopia
Despite the reality of measles, rotavirus, and a plethora of other infectious diseases, there's yet another anti-vaccine movement afoot in California. And its aim is to turn the clock back to the 10th Century.
Read more
---
- Publisher : American Council on Science and Health; 1st edition (January 1, 2017)
- Perfect Paperback : 72 pages
- :{:{:{}:
}:}:
bs blurb
Everyone talks about fake “news,” but it is a little harder to know what junk science is, especially if you are not an expert.The Little Black Book of Junk Science, authored by the American Council on Science and Health’s Dr. Alex Berezow will allow the public to do just that. It is an A-Z pocket-sized, gold embossed, handy reference guide to the most common myths and misunderstandings surrounding health fads, diets, chemicals and other pseudoscience. It provides a small dose of sanity in a world full of junk science.
:{:{}:
}:
---
Top critical review
All critical reviews›
E. Hons
2.0 out of 5 starsJust Junk
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2017
I was hoping for actual science to confront the junk with, as this is listed as coming from the impressive sounding "American Council on Science and Health."
It turns out this is intended more to be funny or at least witty. But it isn't funny. Or witty.
2 people found this helpful
From the United States
Donald J.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on September 24, 2017
Verified Purchase
Good talking points. Helps to dispel myths.
4 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Christina Z.
4.0 out of 5 stars Delivers Science and Snark in Spades
Reviewed in the United States on August 19, 2017
Verified Purchase
I purchased this book on behalf of a family member who I discovered posting articles on the following:
- The initial blast of A/C coming out of the vents when you turn on your car can give you cancer
- Vaccines are a scam, particularly the HPV vaccine
- Energy drinks will give perfectly healthy people heart attacks
As a scientist I feel I have fundamentally failed in some way with this person; and so, I turn to Dr. Berezow and the ACSH to assist in a friendly intervention (I also bought a copy for myself).
At its core, the LBB of Junk Science is just that- a bite-sized, fast-paced index of a multitude of topics that are or suffer from pseudoscience. It is not a deep dive into anything in particular, but it does include citations to further explore some of the topics should you feel so inclined. Dr. Berezow delivers many of these nuggets with a side helping of snark, which can dilute the book's effect to some who would read into it as bias on his part. I offer this perspective instead: as a scientist, you would be a little fed up too if you had to constantly deal with people telling you about the health benefits of homeopathy and yoni eggs (look those up if you're not familiar), and how your body needs more alkalinity because you're SUCH a Gemini. Or worse, that vaccines cause autism (and throwing in a Wakefield reference for proof). And then having said people get angry with you and say you don't know what you're talking about when you inform them their claims aren't based on any real science or credible data. So yeah, I feel you, Berezow. Snark away.
I feel what the book lacks in depth it makes up for in breadth. It's a useful little thing for gifting someone a primer in Pseudoscience 101, as well as basic Real Scientific Terms and What They Actually Mean (relative risk, reproducibility, theory, consensus, correlation and causation, etc.). I intend to use it to quickly bring people up to speed and start longer conversations with them about junk science. And maybe, after that, they'll have a healthier respect for real science. To reference Dr. Berezow in his section on Reproducibility, "science is hard."
PS: there are still SO many topics this could include. Really hoping edition 2 has an entry on yoni eggs.
13 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
E. Hons
2.0 out of 5 stars Just Junk
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2017
Verified Purchase
I was hoping for actual science to confront the junk with, as this is listed as coming from the impressive sounding "American Council on Science and Health."
It turns out this is intended more to be funny or at least witty. But it isn't funny. Or witty.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
marvin spacek
1.0 out of 5 stars It's a tiny pamphlet with not much info. in ...
Reviewed in the United States on November 10, 2017
Verified Purchase
It's a tiny pamphlet with not much info. in it. Just stuff we all know. Way overpriced for what it is.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Jay Lehr
5.0 out of 5 stars Book Details Junk Science Used by Regulators and Touted by Media
Reviewed in the United States on November 3, 2017
Three decades ago, the late Dr. Elizabeth Whelan established the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) for the express purpose of exposing the rapidly declining veracity of scientific information purveyed in journalism, advertising, and public pronouncements by organizations that profit from publicizing health scares.
:{:{}:
}:
ACSH, now directed by Hank Campbell, is made up of a talented staff of scientists, medical doctors, and journalists who are on the battlefield warning the public against the reams of disinformation reported every day. This 72 page, three inch by five inch black book summarizes their work in 193 alphabetized entries explaining the fallacies behind almost every imaginable popular bogus health- or science-related claim.
This book could well be one of the most important science books published in my lifetime,because if everyone read it, society could advance by light-years. Although one can read it in less than an hour, it will require three hours to absorb its critiques of all the fallacies it discusses.
Author Alex Berezow puts the lie to myriad fallacies in amazingly few words in this book, convincing thoughtful readers they are being exposed to copious amounts of misinformation.
The best way to convince potential readers to obtain this book and share its insights is to highlight some of its brilliant entries. Berezow shows, for example, why antibiotics do not cure viral infections, and why people should not waste their money on brain training games, chelation therapy, or chiropractors. He uses mathematics effectively to explain why conspiracy theories diverge from reality.
-Debunking Food Fads-
Readers of this book will likely not watch Dr. Oz again or believe anything the Environmental Working Group ever writes, nor will they buy essential oils from the modern-day snake oil salesmen pushing them as health items. Careful readers will likely eat less organic food and worry less about peanut allergies. The book discusses many food fads, such as eating quinoa and raw or unpasteurized food.
Berezow explains why the anti-oxidant supplement craze is mostly a scam, and why the body mass index often fails to describe a healthy body.
The book is full of simple wisdom. Concerning dieting, for instance, the book notes one sure way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn.
-Exposing Interest Groups-
The book easily dispels fears fracking for natural gas and oil production is dangerous, shows the health risks from the Fukushima nuclear plant breakdown were grossly overstated, and provides evidence genetically modified organisms are good and Greenpeace is bad. After reading the book, you will want to beware of hormone replacement therapy. The book also points out the Union of Concerned Scientists has few scientists but lots of socialists.
And while everyone wants animals to be treated well, Berezow points out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals takes actions that put animals’ lives at risk, for instance by releasing 30,000 mink from captivity to die in the wilds.
-Humor and Clarity-
Although the book covers very serious science topics, it does so with some welcome humor. The entry for “Psychics,” for example, says, “Nobody can see the future. Anybody who claims to predict the future is either a psychic or an economist, and both have roughly the same track record.”
Berezow clearly and concisely describes complex topics such as sample size and the new genetic modification technique CRISPR in ways a nonscientific audience can understand. Many of his explanations are positive, intended to counteract the continuous drumbeat offalse propaganda hyped by hundreds of fear-mongering environmental activist organizations. For instance, Berezow celebrates the strides we have made in preventing lead from getting into children’s blood.
Christmas is approaching, and I cannot imagine a better stocking stuffer for your closest friends and family than this Little Black Book of Junk Science. The American Council on Science and Health will be very happy to supply you with copies.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Secret Santa
5.0 out of 5 stars Free, short, and accurate. Calling out 'Shenanigans' on what passes as science in popular culture.
Reviewed in the United States on July 29, 2017
A rapid-fire and glancing A-Z (albeit with many topical gaps) run-though pointing out the laundry list of non-scientific perspectives on scientific issues that are prevalent in society (and that irritate anyone of an objective scientific mindset).
The author definitely (and conspicuously) left out his perspective on the science of climate change, but other than that...what it lacks in depth it certainly makes up for in breadth.
It's only 70 pages (just 2-3 sentences per topic)so it feels like a speed-dating session. Also it's reminiscent of a 17th/18th/19th century Primer in terms of it's non-depth run through of topics.
It IS officially free off the ACSH website. So you should get it there!
I wish these were available as mini-sized 1.5-inch print editions and if they were I would carry one with me always to give them to random people at coffee shops espousing gratin-to-my-ears anti-scientific nonsense posing as scientific facts. Also would give this to people on my Christmas list if such an edition were available. Maybe I'll have to get some fancy USB flash drives as a gift, and put this one PDF on it, as a gift.
Unfortunately, for any people invested in their non-scientific ideas this does not go into any depth or argument that would likely convince them and would likely offend them. It's not trying to persuade anyone, but reading a clearly intelligent person run through all this I found very validating swimming in an ocean of shenanigans of the BS that passes for science in society.
For school-aged children who aren't properly propagandized yet, I think it sets a great baseline for knowledge and processing all the junk they are/will be exposed to in their late teen and early adult years.
Despite room for improvement (its limited depth of content and,if nothing else, lack of more exposure to the author's clear intelligence, wit, and only slightly muted snarky disdain for stupidity) I still have to give it 5-stars: it's free... and right on the money. I already wholly agreed with about 94% of what's in there, disagreed with about 1%, and 5% I'm not sure about.
For those who actually are smart people (but maybe not science nerds) and who are open to even having a basic pseudo-"fact" dare to be challenged, this book would be great.
11 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Dagmara
5.0 out of 5 stars but I think that people who are confused by all the nonsense they hear in the media will find it useful. It also made me laugh
Reviewed in the United States on August 17, 2017
I am a scientist, so when I saw this book, I had to pick it up. It's definitely very simplified, but I think that people who are confused by all the nonsense they hear in the media will find it useful. It also made me laugh.
5 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Johnny Velvet
5.0 out of 5 stars Funny, informative... and free!
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2017
This book is exactly as the title describes: A physically small book that fits in your pocket that debunks all sorts of junk science. I counted up the number of topics, and it was just over 190. If you can think of the topic, it's probably in the book.
Each definition is short (maybe 2 or 3 sentences at most), so it reads like an "elevator pitch" for each entry. It's just the bare essentials of what you need to know on any (pseudo)scientific topic.
Even better: It's pretty funny in places, and it's free! You can download a PDF on the website for the American Council on Science and Health.
5 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Janet Costello
5.0 out of 5 stars Great
Reviewed in the United States on August 11, 2017
love this
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
superbrain
2.0 out of 5 stars A pseudoscientific attempt to debunk pseudoscience
Reviewed in the United States on July 28, 2017
What a truly useless compendium of garbage. The authors take the reader on a tour of their opinions on topics listed in alphabetical order, often disparaging a person, topic, organization and even one of the National Institutes of Health in a just few unsupported sentences. As a scientist I'm appalled at their positions on some of the subjects. The irony is they claim to be debunking pseudoscience science while making subjective, poorly supported claims for some, though not all, topics. They come across as uninformed and biased and should be embarrassed given the purpose of their pamphlet (at 73 pages it's not a book). In some instances they slander the purveyors of pseudoscience rather than the pseudoscience itself. Is that scientific? I don't believe so. Pass on this. There are plenty of books written by actual objective scientists that debunk many of the myths they attempt to debunk. If I were Mercola or NIH, I would explore legal action. Disparage the science but not the people. How is it scientific to rip Mercola? I disagree with 90% of what he says but if you are claiming to be scientific, attack the science behind the claims not the man making them. And, with regard to the NIH center that deals with alternative medicine, yes it IS important to study yoga and other non-opioid treatments for pain, non-benzo treatments for anxiety, non-SSRI treatments for depression, etc. Seriously, get real jobs!! Are you not aware of the need to study alternatives to Rx meds?? I'm only giving it 2 stars instead of 1 because I agree with some critiques that don't slander people and organizations. The lead author has written articles for main stream press that are compelling and rational. This "book" is not representative of his capabilities. What a shame.
18 people found this helpful
---
science Left Behind: Feel-good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-scientific Left Hardcover – September 12, 2012
To listen to most pundits and political writers, evolution, stem cells, and climate change are the only scientific issues worth mentioning—and the only people who are anti-science are conservatives. Yet those on the left have numerous fallacies of their own. Aversion to clean energy programs, basic biological research, and even life-saving vaccines come naturally to many progressives. These are positions supported by little more than junk-science and paranoid thinking. Now for the first time, science writers Dr. Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell have drawn open the curtain on the lefts fear of science. As Science Left Behind reveals, vague inclinations about the wholesomeness of all things natural, the unhealthiness of the unnatural, and many other seductive fallacies have led to an epidemic of misinformation. The results: public health crises, damaging and misguided policies, and worst of all, a new culture war over basic scientific facts—in which th
also bought:
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
Michael Shellenberger
4.7 out of 5 stars?3,518
Hardcover
4 offers from $39.50
UNREPORTED TRUTHS ABOUT COVID-19 AND LOCKDOWNS: Combined Parts 1-3: Death Counts, Lockdowns, and Masks
UNREPORTED TRUTHS ABOUT COVID-19 AND LOCKDOWNS:…
Alex Berenson
4.8 out of 5 stars?1,390
From Booklist
The authors spend a fair amount of time at the outset of this unsettling book explaining that they don’t have a political agenda, but the book’s subtitle, combined with its stated purpose—“to inform you about a disturbing trend among highly influential progressive activists who misinterpret, misrepresent, and abuse science to advance their ideological and political agendas”—might lead some readers to conclude otherwise. Leaving politics aside, though, there is much here to recommend. The science is clearly explained, and the issues surrounding the science laid out with clarity. There are a lot of hot-button topics here: environmentalism, genetically modified organisms, organic food, product testing on animals, solar power, clean energy, and more. The authors explore the issues in detail, working very hard to give the appearance of political neutrality, and the book does an excellent job of opening readers’ minds to the possibility that these issues aren’t as cut-and-dried as they might have been led to believe by politicians and the media. Open-minded readers, those who don’t mind being asked to reassess their long-held beliefs, should find much here to think about and debate. --David Pitt
Review
“Science Left Behind challenges the notion that poorly informed anti-science rhetoric is solely the province of the right wing…Berezow and Campbell offer numerous examples of progressives hijacking legitimate programs and research and twisting them to suit a backwards-ass anti-science agenda. In this way, reading Science Left Behind is as infuriating as it is eye-opening. A fundamental lack of familiarity with science is rampant in government as a whole, and Science Left Behind does an impressive job drawing attention to this alarming disparity.”
Portland Mercury
“ Nevertheless, Berezow and Campbell's message is jarring and necessary. Science is vilified in American political life. People believe things because they wish to, not because of what is true. This has real-world consequences when it comes to the implementation of beneficial technology. Anti-scientism is everywhere, and acknowledging that much of it comes from our own political tribe is a hard and inconvenient truth.”
Scienceblogs.com
Commentary Magazine
“Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell are on solid ground in Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left…Their arguments slice quickly and powerfully, supported by the kinds of skillfully chosen facts…Science Left Behind does much-needed work in drawing attention to what the authors call the “feel-good fallacies” that constitute the worldviews of so many on the left—often the very individuals who proudly claim membership in the “reality-based com-munity.” More important, Berezow and Campbell articulate a valuable observation that deserves constant reiterating: with great frequency, politics invites us to inhabit an imaginary world populated by fictions that conform to our desires about how things ought to be.”
San Francisco Book Review
“There are a lot of hot-button topics here: environmentalism, genetically modified organisms, organic food, product testing on animals, solar power, clean energy, and more. The authors explore the issues in detail, working very hard to give the appearance of political neutrality, and the book does an excellent job of opening readers’ minds to the possibility that these issues aren’t as cut-and-dried as they might have been led to believe by politicians and the media. Open-minded readers, those who don’t mind being asked to reassess their long-held beliefs, should find much here to think about and debate.
“Anyone who talks for very long with a genuine American leftist -- as opposed to the vastly more numerous moderate liberals -- can quickly see that romantic-nostalgic spite toward science and technology is not the sole province of Fox-watchers."
PolicyMic
“The people who are skeptical of the benefits of vaccination or think that organic food is healthier will undoubtedly find [Science Left Behind] problematic. And they should. The prominent activists and politicians highlighted in this book are spreading misinformation and causing serious harm in some cases, and it's good to see scientists and science writers making some noise about it. You should read what they have to say. Go buy this book.”
Wall Street Journal
“In Science Left Behind, journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell show that conservatives hardly have a monopoly on motivated reasoning, usefully revealing how pervasive scientific misinformation is in progressive arguments on organic and genetically modified foods, clean energy, nuclear waste and other matters.”
Forbes
“Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell, co-authors of Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left, make a nuanced and convincing counter argument: Ludditism is not a partisan issue. In fact, on many of the most critical issues of our time, the “progressive” perspective is often rooted in out-dated, anti-empirical, junk science paradigms that threaten innovation—and are beginning to unnerve the most scientifically minded thinkers on the left….This soft conspiracy, promoted by mainstream Democrats, infects a broad array of science issues and highlights the religious-like iconic beliefs of the left (as Kloor has noted): Nature is sacred, big business is dangerous and corrupt, technology can cause more problems than it helps solve, the world is on the verge of an eco-apocalypse, and we need more precaution, regulation and legislation. I call it enviro-romanticism, a criticism documented in distressing detail in Science Left Behind…Read Science Left Behind. It’s a clarion call for the empirically minded amongst us regardless of your ideological persuasion.”
Booklist
Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, author of THE 10 BIG LIES ABOUT AMERICA
“Entertaining, enlightening and important. This valuable book should shatter the left's smug certainty that science registers as a partisan Democrat. Berezow and Campbell provide persuasive evidence and argument that should reshape conventional wisdom on a wide variety of current controversies."
Kirkus
“A sophisticatedly vitriolic, somewhat tongue-in-cheek addition to the current election debate.”
Publishers Weekly
“Their nonpartisan message is clear: Washington as a whole is woefully uninformed when it comes to the scientific underpinnings of pertinent topics like stem cell research, green energy, organic food, vaccines, and gender issues."
Huntington News
“Groundbreaking…If I were teaching journalism, this is a book that I would require my students to read and absorb -- and keep for reference.”
The Progressive Contrarian
“A no-nonsense, sometimes brutal and sometimes funny book that progressives should read.”
:{:{}:
}:
Red, Green, and Blue.org
Read more
Product details
Publisher ? : ?PublicAffairs; First Edtion; First Edition (September 12, 2012)
Language ? : ? English
Hardcover ? : ? 320 pages
---
---
sorta primer zoonotic but presumably no on habitat destruction
The Next Plague and How Science Will Stop It Paperback – May 4, 2018
by American Council on Science and Health (Author), Dr. Alex Berezow Ph.D. (Author), Hank Campbell (Author),
One hundred and fifty years ago, a scientific revolution occurred: Researchers figured out that disease is not spread by "bad air" but by infectious microorganisms. This insight changed the world. Through a combination of vaccination, pasteurization, and water chlorination -- in addition to improved sanitation and hygiene -- infectious disease has largely become an afterthought in the developed world. However, pathogens aren't entirely gone. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are on the rise. An influenza pandemic is an ever-present threat. Bizarre viruses from obscure parts of the world are creeping into our cities. Many public health officials fear that complacency could make us susceptible to another plague. The good news is that we can stop it, if we arm ourselves with science and vigilance. This consumer-friendly publication The Next Plague And How Science Will Stop It published by the American Council on Science and Health explores the challenges and successes of science in combatting deadly illnesses and diseases with the goal of helping consumers to understand why continued scientific vigilance and innovation, not complacency, are necessary to thwart future epidemics and pandemics.
Hank Campbell is the founder of Science 2.0, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit science media group that has been read by over 300,000,000 people. Prior to founding Science 2.0 he was a senior executive at various physics software companies, including one that resulted in an IPO.
Though a resident of California for 17 years, he still considers himself a Pennsylvania farm boy while he sits in his jacuzzi and eats sushi in the winter.
Publisher ? : ? American Council on Science and Health (May 4, 2018)
Language ? : ? English
Paperback ? : ? 60 pages
2 stars cust rev
---
---
off bs
Former Vice President of Scientific Communications
Dr. Alex Berezow is a PhD microbiologist, science writer, and public speaker who specializes in the debunking of junk science for the American Council on Science and Health. He is also a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors and a featured speaker for The Insight Bureau. Formerly, he was the founding editor of RealClearScience and an Analyst at Geopolitical Futures.
Dr. Berezow joined the American Council on Science and Health as Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science in May 2016 and was promoted to Vice President of Scientific Communications in December 2018. He is a prolific science writer whose work has appeared in multiple outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC News, The Economist, Forbes, and Scientific American. Additionally, he has authored or co-authored three books: The Next Plague and How Science Will Stop It (2018), Little Black Book of Junk Science (2017), and Science Left Behind (2012).
Dr. Berezow has spoken to a wide variety of audiences about science, from graduate school seminars and church congregations to national TV and radio programs. For more than two years, he was regularly featured on the Kirby Wilbur Show, a Seattle area radio program, in a segment called "Real Science with Dr. B."
March 16, 2021 – A Farewell to ACSH
March 10, 2021 – How to Fight a Disinformation Campaign
March 3, 2021 – Building Trust: How the Church Can Encourage COVID Vaccines
March 2, 2021 – Journalists Regurgitate 'The Monsanto Papers'
February 19, 2021 – No, COVID mRNA Vaccine Won't Cause Alzheimer's or Prion Disease
February 18, 2021 – Did Rush Limbaugh's Cigar Smoking Cause His Lung Cancer?
February 16, 2021 – Grist Publishes Lies from Conspiracy Theorist, Smear Merchant Paul Thacker
February 12, 2021 – Environmentalists Want Renewable Energy, But Not Power Lines
February 11, 2021 – Are Most Psoriasis Clinical Trials Unethical?
February 10, 2021 – How Quacks Become Millionaires: '5G-COVID' Doctor Will Sell Supplements
February 9, 2021 – CDC Estimates 83 Million U.S. COVID Infections. This Has Major Implications.
February 5, 2021 – Should COVID Vaccines Be Mandatory?
February 4, 2021 – COVID and Culture: Countries with Strict Social Norms Fare Better
February 3, 2021 – COVID Lockdown Policies Are Inflicting Pain on Separated Families
February 2, 2021 – Benford's Law: Which Countries Are Committing COVID Data Fraud?
January 29, 2021 – Drug Half-Life: Why Viagra Works for 4 Hours But Cialis Works for 24 Hours
January 28, 2021 – Why Isn't Anti-Vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr Banned from Social Media?
January 27, 2021 – Washington vs. Idaho: A COVID Tale of Two States
January 26, 2021 – Europe Sets Renewable Energy Record, But Consumers Pay Twice as Much
January 22, 2021 – COVID: Media Literally Makes Us Sick with Non-Stop Bad News
January 21, 2021 – Even Scientists Are Fooled by a Really Good Story
January 20, 2021 – First 100 Days: Science, Tech, Health Priorities for Biden Administration
January 15, 2021 – Deadly COVID Cases Linked to Antibodies that Attack the Lungs
January 14, 2021 – Hacking DNA Sequences: Biosecurity Meets Cybersecurity
January 12, 2021 – Common Cold May Help Prevent Severe COVID, Death
January 8, 2021 – Is the New, More Contagious COVID Strain a 'Ticking Time Bomb'?
January 7, 2021 – The Lancet's New Moral Crusade: Internet Gambling
January 5, 2021 – COVID Vaccines Put Anti-Science Activists to Shame
January 5, 2021 – A Solution to COVID Vaccine Refusal: Take the Jab or Lose Your Job
December 30, 2020 – Top 10 Junk Science and Bogus Health Claims ACSH Debunked in 2020
December 29, 2020 – Anti-Tech Terrorism: Was Nashville Bomber Anthony Warner Afraid of 5G?
December 27, 2020 – Fraud Doctor Andrew Wakefield Now Lying About COVID RNA Vaccine
December 17, 2020 – My Dad's Surgery for Sixth Nerve Palsy
December 16, 2020 – Tyranny of the Early Birds: Morning People Dictate Our Society
December 15, 2020 – Yes, You Should Get COVID Vaccine Even if You Were Infected
December 14, 2020 – COVID: Arbitrary Public Health Policies Help Destroy Seattle Restaurant Scene
December 11, 2020 – COVID: Why Do So Many Nasty Viruses Come from Bats?
December 7, 2020 – The Geopolitics of Vaccine Distribution
December 4, 2020 – 'Stay Home, Stay Safe': The Clarion Call of Head-in-the-Sand Hypocrites
December 2, 2020 – Why Did UK Regulators Beat the FDA to Approving Pfizer's COVID Vaccine?
December 2, 2020 – The Next COVID: Should We Fear the Global Spread of H5N8 Bird Flu?
November 30, 2020 – Are MMR Anti-Vaxxers Likelier to Get Severe COVID?
November 25, 2020 – MLS Soccer Shows Why Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Predictions Are Worthless
November 24, 2020 – COVID: Asymptomatic Cancer Patient Was a One-Woman Super-Spreader
November 23, 2020 – Comparing COVID Vaccines: Pfizer vs. Moderna vs. AstraZeneca/Oxford
November 19, 2020 – COVID: Nasty Cultural Stuff that (Hopefully) Will End Because of Coronavirus
November 18, 2020 – COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age
November 17, 2020 – Will COVID End the Anti-GMO Movement?
November 17, 2020 – How Washington Governor Jay Inslee Stole Thanksgiving. Is Christmas Next?
November 12, 2020 – Why Kelsey Grammer Should Replace Alex Trebek on 'Jeopardy!'
many pages]
popular by Author
Coronavirus: COVID Deaths in U.S. by Age, Race
Coronavirus and the Fallacy of the False Dilemma
Why Dragonfly Wings Kill Bacteria
A Molecule in Bees' Royal Jelly Promotes Wound Healing
Ethanol: A Lethal Injection for Tumors
Top 10 Pro-Vaccine (or Anti Anti-Vaxxer) Memes on the Internet
Like Beef, Insects Are a Good Source of Iron
Infographic: The Best and Worst Science News Sites
COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age
African-American Homicide Rate Nearly Quadruple the National Average
---
2017
a common question I hear again and again is, "How do I know if a news story is fake?" There is no easy answer1. It helps to be well informed, and it requires a conscious suspension of credulity combined with a gut instinct honed over years of experience.
If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is), science journalism is even worse. Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism. Every week, it seems, an everyday food is either going to cure cancer or kill us all.
One thing experience has taught us is that some news outlets are better than others. Some journalists really do care about reporting the news as it is rather than the way they would like it to be. So, in an effort to promote good science news sources while castigating the bad, we teamed up with RealClearScience to create an infographic.
On the X-axis (from left to right), we rank sources by their fundamental trustworthiness. Media outlets in the green column produce scientific content that is based on evidence and is largely free of ideology. Sources in the red column, on the other hand, are driven by ideology and are characterized by lopsided reporting. Evidence plays little to no role for these outlets.
On the Y-axis (from top to bottom), we rank media outlets based on whether they are compelling sources of information. Outlets toward the top are of broad general interest and are well reported. Outlets toward the bottom are of limited interest or are poorly reported. (By "poorly reported," we mean either the topic selection is dull or the content is mostly fluff or sensationalism.)
(RealClearScience also has its own analysis of this infographic.)
Why Is THAT Source Listed There?
Some of our rankings may surprise you. Here are more detailed explanations for a few specific choices2:
The best of the best. By far, the two best sources of science news (besides ACSH and RealClearScience, of course!) are Nature and Science, both of which have news sections aimed at the general public. The Economist is excellent for people who are mostly interested in global news and politics but have a curiosity for science. NewScientist and Live Science are perfect for true science geeks.
No love for Popular Science and Wired? They're okay. While some of their content is good, our biggest problem with them is that they are prone to wide-eyed speculation and clickbait rather than serious science news analysis. Physics World has the opposite problem. It is very serious and well reported, but the topic selection is esoteric and of interest to few people.
What's wrong with Scientific American? For a long while, Scientific American became the headquarters for left-wing social justice warriors and others who felt bashing conservatives was more important than reporting good science. (Previously, that dubious distinction went to ScienceBlogs, but nobody reads that anymore.) SciAm's best content is generally stuff they reprint from other outlets.
The New York Times is a joke. The NYT -- America's alleged newspaper of record -- has itself quite a record of unscientific transgressions. The paper promotes dubious fad diets, cited the quack Joe Mercola on a story about the safety of wearable electronics, and gives voice to organic foodies. It also published a story on a fake disease called post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome. The NYT regularly reports false information on GMOs and agriculture, perhaps none so egregious as this utterly abominable article by Danny Hakim that compared pesticides to Nazi-made sarin gas. If it wasn't for the fact that some respectable writers like John Tierney and Carl Zimmer also publish there, the NYT's science coverage would be comparable to that of the Huffington Post.
Beware British tabloids. News sources like the Daily Mail and The Telegraph serve up a disproportionate amount of sensationalist garbage. Avoid.
Not a single cable news source is worth your time. While CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC might be useful for other things, they are mostly awful sources of science news. Any science news reported here should be verified for accuracy.
Pure garbage. The biggest purveyors of fake science news are Natural News, Mercola, The Food Babe, and InfoWars. If they ever report something truthful, it is almost certainly by accident. Even a broken clock is correct twice per day.
Notes
(1) Here is a list of ten tips to help you detect fake news.
(2) Full disclosure: ACSH and RCS have a reprinting agreement with LiveScience. This did not impact our rating, however, because we would not establish a reprinting agreement with an outlet we felt was not evidence-based.
Tags:
---
11 21 desmog
Meet the Climate Science Deniers Who Downplayed COVID-19 ...
DeSmog › 2020/03/16 › climate-science-deniers-downplayed-co...
January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019, which causes the disease COVID-19, was officially a “public health emergency of international concern.” At the time, there were cases confirmed in 19 countries and deaths in China had reached 170.
The very next day, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) published an article titled, “Coronavirus in the U.S.: How Bad Will It Be?”
“Is coronavirus worse than the flu?” it began. “No, not even close.”
“It already has spread from person-to-person in the U.S., but it probably won’t go far,” ACSH added. “And the American healthcare system is excellent at dealing with this sort of problem.”
ACSH is one of several organizations promoting climate science denial that are now spreading misinformation on the coronavirus, with potentially deadly consequences.
American Council on Science and Health?
The ACSH presents itself to the public as a proponent of “peer-reviewed mainstream science,” in the words of the organization’s mission. Their experts have frequently been quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines, and they pen columns criticizing journalists who write critically about companies like Monsanto. The group has received funding from oil giants including ExxonMobil, as well as from the agribusiness, chemical and tobacco industries to name a few.
When it comes to climate change, ACSH has published a steady stream of articles downplaying climate science and criticizing efforts to slow carbon emissions — even in the face of a mountain of peer-reviewed research on the climate crisis.
ACSH slammed the medical journal The Lancet as “an ideologically driven outlet with a very clear political agenda where being sensationalist and culturally woke trumps evidence and reasonability” (after the Lancet published an article titled “The carbon footprint”). The purported “pro-science” advocacy group has labeled Greta Thunberg’s activism “doomsday prophesying.” It has (falsely) suggested that climate change is less of a concern because “more people die in winter than in summer” (they don’t).
And that’s all just in the past nine months. The ACSH’s stance against climate action dates back to at least 1997.
When it comes to coronavirus, now a global pandemic, ACSH’s authors rushed to judgment. They assured readers that there was little to worry about, and put some of the same faulty thinking that underlies their stance on climate change on display.
aCSH isn’t alone. Other organizations that have also engaged in climate science denial made similar missteps on COVID-19, including prominent organizations that fanned the flames of conspiracy theories or confidently promoted complacency when circumstances required rapid action.
To be clear: No one should be faulted for failing to foresee precisely how severe of a problem COVID-19 would prove to be. None of us has a crystal ball and few, if any, expected this situation to unfold in this particular way.
But these organizations published positions that not only wound up being laden with false reassurances, but they did so based on claims that they made confidently at the time that now appear to have been false o...the article defended Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas for his Fox News interview...The piece argues against action on COVID-19, without citing any evidence about the virus itself, but instead based on characterizations and generalizations. “I’ve seen several news reports essentially implying that, even if quarantining travelers or imposing travel bans to China are overreactions to the risk of the coronavirus, this is ok because it’s better to be safe than sorry,” he&...wrote. “Companies are so fearful of negative press that they seem to base much of their own rhetoric on what the media and liberal elites demand. While some of this is arguably harmless — note much of the hot air at Davos about climate change — when it becomes corporate policy and is echoed by government policy, it then has real consequences.”
“A contagion will happen at some point, and it’s important we recognize it and react,” he added.
“Unless the coronavirus mutates into something far more dangerous,” he concluded, “this isn’t it.”
To be sure, there was not a visible consensus on those views within AEI. That same day, another AEI fellow published an article calling the coronavirus a “big economic deal,” citing its impact on China’s economy. And a three-paragraph AEI post later labeled claims that COVID-19 is a bioweapon “fake news.”
Those other pieces, however, do not undo any impacts from AEI publishing claims that proved to be baseless.
Reading Comprehension
Other times, articles downplaying the risks from COVID-19, penned by organizations that have adopted climate-science denying stances, present arguments laced with logical fallacies.
In some cases, it’s not clear whether the authors understood the comments they were critiquing.
Take, for instance, the Cato Institute’s March 4, 2020 column on “COVID-19 Deaths and Incredible WHO Estimates.” That piece attacks a statement by the WHO’s director general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was quoted in The New York Times as saying, “Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-?19 cases have died.”
Cato’s column labeled that statistic “sensationalist nonsense.” The number doesn’t take into account the fact that mild cases are more likely to go unreported, Cato’s Alan Reynolds wrote.
Because most #CoronaVirus cases are mild and aren’t reported, the WHO’s alleged 3.4% #Covid19 mortality rate is nothing more than sensationalist nonsense. The actual death rate among infected people outside China may be as low as 0.5%. https://t.co/CQmNYEkXsE #CatoHealth pic.twitter.com/nnyUH0DqXe
— Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) March 8, 2020
That, of course, is exactly why Dr. Adhanom included the word “reported” in his description of the statistic. There’s no ball being hidden here. And in case readers missed that word and its importance, The Times’ report included an explanation of that precise context. (“But the figure came loaded with caveats,” The Times wrote. “Experts, including those at the WHO, say that when more is known about the epidemic, the death rate will be considerably lower.”)
One day later, President Trump took a similar tack to Cato’s, calling the 3.4 precent statistic “really a false number.”
“Now, this is just a hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this,” Trump added.
It’s not clear where exactly Trump picked up his impression — but then of course, Trump has his own well-known stance on climate science.
‘Not Even Close’
The author of the ACSH piece claiming that coronavirus is “not even close” to as bad as the flu was Dr. Alex Berezow — a PhD in microbiology, according to his bio, not a medical doctor. Berezow has been interviewed about coronavirus precautions by the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, Insider, and Yahoo News.
Berezow doubled down on his claim that the flu is a worse threat than coronavirus in a February 18 article. “Influenza is far deadlier than the Wuhan coronavirus, but few people worry about it,” that article begins, referring to the virus with the Chinese city initially at the center of the outbreak (a practice that’s since been viewed as stigmatizing and racist, amid a growing number of cases of stigma-motivated racial violence).
A few weeks later, Berezow changed his tune, offering readers assurances that even if COVID-19 was far more deadly than the flu, there was still little reason for alarm in an article calling media reports “unreliable” and “sensationalism.”
“Even though the Wuhan coronavirus is currently thought to have a case-fatality rate of 2 percent (which would make it 20 times deadlier [than influenza]),” he wrote, “it’s unlikely that it will rack up a similar annual death toll because — at least for the time being — it is not going to infect hundreds of millions of people.”
A week later, on February 27, Berezow admitted he had changed his mind, saying that the facts had changed and writing: “When COVID-19, aka the Wuhan coronavirus, first emerged, it seemed most likely that the virus would fizzle out. But as the disease continues to spread, that outcome now appears nearly impossible.”
But by mid-March, Berezow was back to arguing that, as he wrote on March 11, “[f]or now, influenza remains the far bigger global public health threat.”
In contrast, public health organizations like the WHO have sought to offer information in ways that are both careful and candid. The Centers for Disease Control’s (neglected) guidelines for public health communication call for messaging that’s consistent, accurate, and doesn’t withhold important information.
There’s an enormous amount of uncertainty about what the coming days will bring when it comes to this pandemic. But if we’re all going to make the best decisions possible today, we’d be well-served to pay close attention to medical science.
And when so much of the message that there’s nothing to worry about on climate change comes from think tanks like Cato, AEI, and ACSH that made unsupported and flawed calls on COVID-19, it’s worth taking a moment to pause and think about that as well.
Because as monumental as the impacts of this pandemic are now, the science tells us that if we fail to dramatically cut carbon and methane emissions, the impacts of climate change may be even more profound over the long run.
---
Mar 16, 2020 ... Berezow has been interviewed about coronavirus precautions by the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, Insider, and Yahoo News. Berezow ...
Unequivocal: Today's Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science ...
DeSmog › 2011/09/27 › unequivocal-today-s-right-overwhemin...
Thumbnail image
Sep 27, 2011 ... I accused the author, Alex Berezow, of constructing a false equivalence between right and left wing science abuse. The latter does occur ...
Koch & COVIDenial - DeSmog
DeSmog › koch-covidenial
Thumbnail image
May 4, 2020 ... Alex Berezow. “Coronavirus And The Fallacy Of The False Dilemma,” American Council on Science and Health, April 22.
Heartland Lists A B C D E F 1 Source Type First Name Last Name ...
www.desmog.com › wp-content › uploads › files
File Format: Microsoft Excel
13, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116091-Heartland-Climate-Scientists-List-Merged-Redacted.html, "Scientist", Alex B. Berezow, Alex B. Berezow.
COVID Denier Conspiracy Theories - DeSmog
DeSmog › covid-denier-conspiracy-theories
Thumbnail image
Apr 22, 2020 ... Alex Berezow. “Best Evidence Yet That Coronavirus Came From Wuhan BSL-4 Lab,“ American Council on Science and Health, April 13.
COVID-19 Denial - DeSmog
DeSmog › covid-19-denial
Thumbnail image
Alex Berezow. “Coronavirus In The U.S.: How Bad Will It Be?“ American Council on Science and Health, January 31. Q: Is coronavirus worse than the flu?
---
https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/06/26/exxon-climate-denial-american-council-science-health/
exxonMobil is funding a little-known nonprofit that calls itself a “pro-science advocacy organization,” but whose scientific advisory board includes several renowned climate deniers and has worked for decades to sow doubt about the health impacts of climate change.
Records show the ExxonMobil Foundation provided grants of at least $60,000 in both 2017 and 2018 to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that says its mission is to “publicly support evidence-based science and medicine.”
Members of the ACSH scientific advisory board, however, include a who’s who of climate deniers, including Patrick J. Michaels, who has worked for more than 30 years on behalf of the fossil fuel industry; S. Fred Singer, who last year wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal falsely claiming that sea level rise is not caused by climate change; and William Happer, a current member of President Trump’s National Security Council who as recently as 2016 argued that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Documents recently revealed in an investigation by The Guardian guk show ExxonMobil’s current funding of the ACSH began prior to 1999, when Exxon and Mobil merged to become Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the largest oil companies in the world.
“ACSH is a front group for libertarian billionaires, fossil fuel companies, and basically every other industry selling dangerous products,” said Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard University researcher who in 2017 published a study that showed how Exxon’s internal memos take the climate issue seriously while its public communications emphasize doubt about the science.
ACSH has also defended fracking as safe for the environment, denied the dangers of bisphenol-A (BPA) and opposed efforts to limit sugar in sodas, among other pro-industry stances.
Corporations fund nonprofits, think tanks and trade groups, many of which are “dark money” organizations that do not disclose their donors to the public, to further their interests without directly being tied to the groups’ work.
“This is just one more example of how these large corporations use third-party organizations to convey their message without being directly connected to them,” said Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, who is now a visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University.
“It fits exactly with the kind of stuff ExxonMobil has done for years and years—this is exactly their strategy,” said Brulle, who has studied the funding patterns of organizations connected to climate denial. “The question is what is still going on and why does Exxon still have its connection to this group after all these years?”
In addition to its questionable science advisory board, the ACSH board of trustees includes Fred L. Smith, founder of the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and current director of CEI’s Center for Advancing Capitalism.
In a bit of irony, Exxon said in 2006 it would stop funding CEI (which it had given nearly $2 million between 1998-2005) because of its work denying climate change, but it continued to fund ACSH at least through 2018, the last year for which data is available.
ExxonMobil’s current funding of ACSH is a continuation of a relationship that goes back decades.
Prior to merging in 1999, Exxon and Mobil both funded the ACSH, according to internal Mobil Foundation documents, which include a list of potential grant recipients as well as Mobil’s justification for the funding decision. They reveal that the Mobil Foundation provided at least $125,000 in grants to the ACSH between 1981-93 and funding was expected to continue into 1994.
The Mobil Foundation recommended continuing to provide funding to the ACSH in part because “the Council has achieved high credibility and recognition in the media and scientific community, as evidenced by wide publication of their positions in the press and scientific journals.”
It’s unclear what the most recent ExxonMobil Foundation grants were used for, but Alex Berezow, vice president of scientific affairs for ACSH, said they weren’t designated for any specific research or project.
“Our policy for the past several years precludes us from doing specific research in exchange for corporate grants,” Berezow said.
Since its founding in 1978, the ACSH has worked to promote corporate positions on science, most often taking the position that chemicals are not a threat to humans or the environment.
“It’s a quintessential anti-science astroturf in the fossil fuel industry’s web of denial and delay—this is an organization founded by money from libertarian ideologues like the Scaifes, Olins, and Kochs,” Supran said. “Unsurprisingly therefore, ACSH’s rhetoric on the climate crisis since the 1990’s has masterfully complemented the talking points of its fossil fuel funders, including Exxon, Mobil, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute.”
Exxon, Mobil and “The Great Defender of Petrochemical Companies”
ACSH was founded in 1978 by Elizabeth Whelan, a public health scientist with postgraduate degrees from Yale and Harvard, who died in 2014. She wanted to counteract the work of environmental and consumer advocacy groups, which she said were not using sound science about the dangers of products to the environment and public health. “We help policymakers see past scaremongers and activist groups who have targeted GMOs, vaccines, conventional agriculture, nuclear power, natural gas, and ‘chemicals,’ while peddling health scares and fad diets,” the ACSH website says.
It’s unknown whether Exxon and Mobil’s funding was used for a specific project or research, but the ACSH grant was recommended by Mobil’s public relations department, which said Whelan’s work was a major benefit to the company.
Whelan’s description of the ACSH was much more candid. In a 1992 memo, she referred to the organization as “the great defender of petrochemical companies.”
In a 1998 article titled, Global Warming Not Health Threat, Whelan wrote that climate science is “is rife with uncertainty as are the allegations for the health effects” and climate change models are “far from perfect.”
“As for the hypothetical health effects that are based on the alleged global warming, these predictions are even more dubious,” wrote Whelan, adding that limiting greenhouse gas emissions could worsen human health in developing countries.
Supran said ACSH vociferously promoted Mobil’s position that addressing climate change would result in severe adverse economic impacts and increase poverty.
“ACSH was and is a talking head, amplifying the fossil fuel industry’s narrative while maintaining the false pretense of an “independent” voice,” Supran said. “Their rhetoric faithfully echoed Mobil’s key themes of doubt: that global warming is not real and human-caused, not serious, and not solvable.”
ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment.
Wanted: Studies to “Put Climate Change Health Hazards in Perspective”
It was at the urging of Mobil that the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a fossil fuel industry-backed group that worked from 1989 to 2002 to strategically undermine international climate negotiations, looked to the ACSH for help downplaying the potential health effects of climate change.
By the mid-1990’s, the GCC and its fossil fuel members, including many ACSH funders, had become concerned about the growing body of research suggesting climate change could cause serious health impacts.
Exxon scientists Dennis Devlin and Barry Friedlander presented a summary of published literature on the health impacts of climate change during a September 1996 meeting of the Global Climate Coalition’s Science and Technology Assessment Committee. The presentation emphasized “key knowledge gaps” and “advocated critical evaluation of models and ongoing studies to put climate change health hazards in perspective.”
After the presentation, the GCC meeting attendees discussed the findings and brainstormed “ways of encouraging a more balanced scientific evaluation of this concern.”
To provide that “balance,” Lenny Bernstein of Mobil suggested Whelan and the ACSH.
Bernstein told the group that Whelan was considering an “independent assessment on the climate change and health issue.” He also noted that many of the Global Climate Coalition’s member companies financially support the ACSH and urged them to contact her to suggest she write an assessment.
“The health issue is increasing in importance with the climate change issue, as with other environmental issues,” wrote the Global Climate Coalition in meeting minutes from January 1997. “The GCC has got to be prepared to respond to the issue this year.”
Disregarding the growing body of research indicating otherwise, the GCC in early 1997 wrote in a position paper that “attempting to link global climate change and adverse health impacts requires a long and very tenuous stretch.” The group downplayed the work of a 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that includes the world’s leading climate scientists—writing “concerns that climate change might be the cause of various health problems rests on a number of unproved assumptions.”
The Global Climate Coalition also provided the ACSH with a two-part grant to study the health effects of climate change.
The study, however, would be anything but independent.
By early summer 1997, the GCC had reviewed a draft of the report and suggested edits. The ACSH then began working on a rewritten draft to be reviewed by GCC committee members.
It’s unclear if that report was ever published, but later that year the ACSH published “Global climate change and human health.”
As the GCC had hoped, the report downplayed the views of mainstream science and said “implementation of current proposals for mitigation measures—measures to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—would be both costly and ineffective.”
Brulle said corporations and industry groups like the GCC use organizations like the ACSH to add a “veneer of legitimacy.”
“This really fits directly into this whole strategy of third party spokespersons, taking your point, but not attributing it to you, it’s attributed to an ‘independent’ organization,” Brulle said.
The ACSH report did not disclose its funders, but concluded that “policymakers can safely take several decades to plan a response, and scientists will have enough time to develop cost-effective anti-climate-change strategies.”
When asked if the published report was funded by the Global Climate Coalition or if another report was published, Berezow said he did not know.
“Anyone who would know the answer to that question is either deceased or retired,” he said.
ACSH Benefits to ExxonMobil: Denial and Delay
After years of scrutiny, ExxonMobil has stopped funding some of the more vocal climate deniers and organizations. In addition to dropping CEI, the oil giant has ended its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council and has said it no longer funds the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Institute for Energy Research, all organizations that are heavily industry-influenced and have worked for years to deny climate change and delay the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
But ExxonMobil continues to fund the ACSH despite the organization’s position that “climate change is a slow-moving threat whose consequences are in the medium- to long-term future, not the near-term.”
“We typically only talk about climate change tangentially. For instance, we support Generation IV nuclear power because, among many other things, it helps reduce carbon emissions,” Berezow said, adding that the organization’s main focus is on biomedical science and public health.
Brulle said while using third-party spokespeople and groups like the ACSH isn’t new, ExxonMobil’s continued relationship is notable.
“I do find it a little surprising that ExxonMobil would be cozy enough to be directly connected to this group,” Brulle said.
Supran said ACSH continues to be an excellent investment for ExxonMobil.
“In a 2016 ACSH article promoting the authority of discredited and debunked climate deniers and delayers, for instance, ExxonMobil’s funding fingerprints are nowhere to be found,” Supran said, referring to Meet the Scientific Outcasts and Mavericks, which was authored by Berezow.
In Are The ‘Green 20’ Suppressing Scientific Dissent?, posted in 2017, then-ACSH president Hank Campbell, critiqued the New York attorney general’s office for its investigation of ExxonMobil for possibly deceiving its investors on the risks of climate change.
In another, Al Gore: Still Demented After All These Years, Berezow said in 2017 that the world’s biggest health problem is poverty, not climate change. “When it comes to human disease, climate change is mostly a distraction. Eliminating poverty will do far more to save people’s lives than lowering the temperature a notch,” Berezow said.
Nowhere on the ACSH website is ExxonMobil’s funding acknowledged.
“As it’s grown more publicly untenable for companies themselves to publicly deny basic science, front groups like ACSH help do their dirty work,” said Supran, adding that the ACSH is a prime example of how ExxonMobil’s denial and delay continue through increasingly veiled initiatives.
“ACSH’s faux-scientific calls for ’evidence-based science’ and its fixation on false dichotomies between meaningful climate action on the one hand, and poverty reduction and economic growth on the other, align with, extend, and amplify ExxonMobil’s own talking points,” he said. “The rhetoric has shifted an inch, but it’s just a rose by any other name—the goal is the same: inaction.”
---
---
2x
https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/climate-science-deniers-downplayed-covid-19-cato-acsh-aei
Meet the Climate Science Deniers Who Downplayed COVID-19 Risks
By Sharon Kelly • Monday, March 16, 2020 - 15:25
no lnx many
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019, which causes the disease COVID-19, was officially a “public health emergency of international concern.” At the time, there were cases confirmed in 19 countries and deaths in China had reached 170.
The very next day, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) published an article titled, “Coronavirus in the U.S.: How Bad Will It Be?”
“Is coronavirus worse than the flu?” it began. “No, not even close.”
“It already has spread from person-to-person in the U.S., but it probably won't go far,” ACSH added. “And the American healthcare system is excellent at dealing with this sort of problem.”
ACSH is one of several organizations promoting climate science denial that are now spreading misinformation on the coronavirus, with potentially deadly consequences.
American Council on Science and Health?
The ACSH presents itself to the public as a proponent of “peer-reviewed mainstream science,” in the words of the organization’s mission. Their experts have frequently been quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines, and they pen columns criticizing journalists who write critically about companies like Monsanto. The group has received funding from oil giants including ExxonMobil, as well as from the agribusiness, chemical and tobacco industries to name a few.
When it comes to climate change, ACSH has published a steady stream of articles downplaying climate science and criticizing efforts to slow carbon emissions — even in the face of a mountain of peer-reviewed research on the climate crisis.
ACSH slammed the medical journal The Lancet as “an ideologically driven outlet with a very clear political agenda where being sensationalist and culturally woke trumps evidence and reasonability” (after the Lancet published an article titled “The carbon footprint”). The purported “pro-science” advocacy group has labeled Greta Thunberg’s activism “doomsday prophesying.” It has (falsely) suggested that climate change is less of a concern because “more people die in winter than in summer” (they don’t).
And that’s all just in the past nine months. The ACSH’s stance against climate action dates back to at least 1997.
When it comes to coronavirus, now a global pandemic, ACSH’s authors rushed to judgment. They assured readers that there was little to worry about, and put some of the same faulty thinking that underlies their stance on climate change on display.
ACSH isn’t alone. Other organizations that have also engaged in climate science denial made similar missteps on COVID-19, including prominent organizations that fanned the flames of conspiracy theories or confidently promoted complacency when circumstances required rapid action.
To be clear: No one should be faulted for failing to foresee precisely how severe of a problem COVID-19 would prove to be. None of us has a crystal ball and few, if any, expected this situation to unfold in this particular way.
But these organizations published positions that not only wound up being laden with false reassurances, but they did so based on claims that they made confidently at the time that now appear to have been false or misleading.
Defending Conspiracy Theorists
Take for example, the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) publications on COVID-19.
AEI fanned the flames of a conspiracy theory that claims COVID-19 was developed for biological warfare.
AEI resident scholar Michael Rubin published a piece titled, “Was coronavirus a bioweapon? We don’t know, but history shows we can’t trust China.”
The article defended Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas for his Fox News interview circulating the theory.
Roger Bate, an AEI visiting scholar, also penned a January 29 piece headlined, “The media is driving the overreaction to the coronavirus.”
The piece argues against action on COVID-19, without citing any evidence about the virus itself, but instead based on characterizations and generalizations. “I’ve seen several news reports essentially implying that, even if quarantining travelers or imposing travel bans to China are overreactions to the risk of the coronavirus, this is ok because it’s better to be safe than sorry,” he wrote. “Companies are so fearful of negative press that they seem to base much of their own rhetoric on what the media and liberal elites demand. While some of this is arguably harmless — note much of the hot air at Davos about climate change — when it becomes corporate policy and is echoed by government policy, it then has real consequences.”
“A contagion will happen at some point, and it’s important we recognize it and react,” he added.
“Unless the coronavirus mutates into something far more dangerous,” he concluded, “this isn’t it.”
To be sure, there was not a visible consensus on those views within AEI. That same day, another AEI fellow published an article calling the coronavirus a “big economic deal,” citing its impact on China’s economy. And a three-paragraph AEI post later labeled claims that COVID-19 is a bioweapon “fake news.”
Those other pieces, however, do not undo any impacts from AEI publishing claims that proved to be baseless.
Reading Comprehension
Other times, articles downplaying the risks from COVID-19, penned by organizations that have adopted climate-science denying stances, present arguments laced with logical fallacies.
In some cases, it’s not clear whether the authors understood the comments they were critiquing.
Take, for instance, the Cato Institute’s March 4, 2020 column on “COVID-19 Deaths and Incredible WHO Estimates.” That piece attacks a statement by the WHO’s director general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was quoted in The New York Times as saying, “Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-?19 cases have died.”
Cato’s column labeled that statistic “sensationalist nonsense.” The number doesn’t take into account the fact that mild cases are more likely to go unreported, Cato’s Alan Reynolds wrote.
That, of course, is exactly why Dr. Adhanom included the word “reported” in his description of the statistic. There’s no ball being hidden here. And in case readers missed that word and its importance, The Times’ report included an explanation of that precise context. (“But the figure came loaded with caveats,” The Times wrote. “Experts, including those at the WHO, say that when more is known about the epidemic, the death rate will be considerably lower.”)
One day later, President Trump took a similar tack to Cato’s, calling the 3.4 precent statistic “really a false number.”
“Now, this is just a hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this,” Trump added.
It’s not clear where exactly Trump picked up his impression — but then of course, Trump has his own well-known stance on climate science.
'Not Even Close'
The author of the ACSH piece claiming that coronavirus is “not even close” to as bad as the flu was Dr. Alex Berezow — a PhD in microbiology, according to his bio, not a medical doctor. Berezow has been interviewed about coronavirus precautions by the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, Insider, and Yahoo News.
Berezow doubled down on his claim that the flu is a worse threat than coronavirus in a February 18 article. “Influenza is far deadlier than the Wuhan coronavirus, but few people worry about it,” that article begins, referring to the virus with the Chinese city initially at the center of the outbreak (a practice that's since been viewed as stigmatizing and racist, amid a growing number of cases of stigma-motivated racial violence).
A few weeks later, Berezow changed his tune, offering readers assurances that even if COVID-19 was far more deadly than the flu, there was still little reason for alarm in an article calling media reports “unreliable” and “sensationalism.”
“Even though the Wuhan coronavirus is currently thought to have a case-fatality rate of 2 percent (which would make it 20 times deadlier [than influenza]),” he wrote, “it’s unlikely that it will rack up a similar annual death toll because — at least for the time being — it is not going to infect hundreds of millions of people.”
A week later, on February 27, Berezow admitted he had changed his mind, saying that the facts had changed and writing: “When COVID-19, aka the Wuhan coronavirus, first emerged, it seemed most likely that the virus would fizzle out. But as the disease continues to spread, that outcome now appears nearly impossible.”
But by mid-March, Berezow was back to arguing that, as he wrote on March 11, “[f]or now, influenza remains the far bigger global public health threat.”
In contrast, public health organizations like the WHO have sought to offer information in ways that are both careful and candid. The Centers for Disease Control’s (neglected) guidelines for public health communication call for messaging that’s consistent, accurate, and doesn’t withhold important information.
There’s an enormous amount of uncertainty about what the coming days will bring when it comes to this pandemic. But if we’re all going to make the best decisions possible today, we’d be well-served to pay close attention to medical science.
And when so much of the message that there’s nothing to worry about on climate change comes from think tanks like Cato, AEI, and ACSH that made unsupported and flawed calls on COVID-19, it’s worth taking a moment to pause and think about that as well.
Because as monumental as the impacts of this pandemic are now, the science tells us that if we fail to dramatically cut carbon and methane emissions, the impacts of climate change may be even more profound over the long run.
---
==
ref
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2011/09/22/chris-mooney-classic-false-equivalence-of-the-political-abuse-of-science/
404 no wayback
---
https://usrtk.org/tag/alex-berezow/
Posted on December 6, 2018 by Stacy Malkan
Update: As this article was about to publish, Hank Campbell was removed from the staff roster of the American Council on Science and Health, the organization he has led as president since July 2015, for unknown reasons. A few days later, he delinked his ring of science blogs (Science 2.0, Science Codex, ScienceBlogs) from ACSH.org.
Hank Campbell was until this week president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group that claims to be a “pro-science consumer advocacy organization,” but according to leaked internal documents and emails released via litigation, ACSH offers its advocacy not to consumers but to chemical, tobacco and pharmaceutical corporate interests (and others) that provide financial backing. For more about ACSH’s work as a corporate front group, see our fact sheet.
Campbell took over the leadership of ACSH in July 2015 from acting president Gil Ross, MD, a convicted felon who was jailed for Medicaid fraud. Tax records show that Dr. Ross was still on the ACSH payroll as of 2017 with $111,618 in compensation as “former senior director of medicine and public health,” while Campbell received $224,358. Prior to leading ACSH, Campbell worked in software development, created what he calls the “world famous Science 2.0 movement,” and wrote a book about the “anti-science” left.
He runs a ring of questionable science websites, including one that posted anti-Semitic materials that Campbell tried to defend.
Campbell’s network of for-profit, non-profit science blogs
NYU Professor Charles Seife posted documents in November that shed light on Campbell’s network of science blogs that help promote the American Council on Science and Health. In a Twitter thread he called “Mapping a Monsanto-loving octopus,” Seife reported:
Campbell’s corporation ION Publications LLC (founded in 2008) owns several science blogging websites, including Science 2.0, Science Codex and others. According to its most recent tax records, ACSH paid ION $60,000 as a “website development service that promotes ACSH.org and increases traffic to the website.”
In 2018, Campbell converted Science 2.0 into a nonprofit and then acquired ScienceBlogs.com. The nonprofit’s officers are Campbell and David Zaruk, a former chemical industry lobbyist who once worked for the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller. The science blogging websites under these umbrellas cross-promote each other and the ACSH.org website.
Seife summed up his Twitter thread: “this is how a once-admired science blogging site, @scienceblogs, was acquired by a complex and, IMO, shady network of for-profits and non-profits helping Monsanto.”
Helping Monsanto
According to documents released via litigation, Monsanto paid the American Council on Science and Health in 2015 to defend glyphosate and help discredit the scientists of the World Health Organization’s cancer research panel for their report raising cancer concerns about the herbicide.
The documents indicate that Monsanto executives were uncomfortable about working with ACSH but did so anyway because “we don’t have a lot of supporters and can’t afford to lose the few we have,” Daniel Goldstein, Monsanto’s senior science lead, wrote in an email to colleagues. Goldstein provided links to two books, a pamphlet, a pesticide review and 53 articles on the ACSH.org website that he described as “EXTREMELY USEFUL” (emphasis Goldstein’s).
Anti-Semitic material on Science 2.0
Some former writers for ScienceBlogs.com refused to grant rights for their work to remain on the site due to its association with Campbell and Science 2.0, and other observers called on writers to do the same. At issue was Science 2.0’s publishing of anti-Semitic material, which Campbell tried to explain and defend.
In response to the criticism, Campbell removed some posts by the physicist Sascha Vongehr, including one titled, “One Thing Hitler Did Wrong.” The removal notice describes Vongehr’s work as “satire” that came off as offensive due to the “the author’s imperfect grasp of the English language.” Science 2.0 continues to display dozens of articles by Vongehr, including some that contain various anti-Semitic sentiments, such as a post in which Vongehr describes himself as “a Germanic racist” and another titled “Advanced Racism For Dr Duke And Prof Slattery: Why Hate Jews?”
Related:
Science 2.0 refuses to remove Nazi eugenics blog posts, by Keira Havens, Medium (7.9.2018)
Using USA Today as an outlet
In February 2017, two dozen health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today with concerns that the paper regularly publishes science columns authored by ACSH staff, including Campbell, without disclosing ACSH’s funding from multiple corporate interests. ACSH Vice President of Scientific Affairs Alex Berezow, who co-authored Campbell’s 2012 book, remains on the USA Today Board of Contributors but his bio there does not disclose his leadership staff position at ACSH.
Related:
Newsweek and USA Today Need Standards for Opinion Writers, by Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (2.2.2018)
Public Interest Groups to USA Today: Dump Corporate Front Group Science Columns, letter to editors (2.23.2017)
USA Today Fail: Trump Science Article Written By Corporate Front Group, by Stacy Malkan, Alternet (6.1.2016)
The American Council on Science and Health is a Corporate Front Group, USRTK fact sheet
GMOs, Our Investigations, Pesticides ACSH, Alex Berezow, American Council on Health and Science, Charles Seife, Daniel Goldstein, David Zaruk, Gil Ross, glyphosate, Hank Campbell, ION Publications LLC, Monsanto, Sascha Vongehr, Science 2.0, Science Codex, ScienceBlogs
==
~ mooney
no lnx
The notion that Republicans are uniquely anti-science is an oft-repeated theme in American political discourse. Every election cycle, Democrats salivate over opportunities to indicate how scientifically illiterate they believe Republicans to be. And all too often, the news media happily play along without pausing to analyze whether it is actually true.
[USA TODAY OPINION
Columns
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.
Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.
We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.
Contributors Board
How to submit a column]
Recently, a child asked Texas Gov. Rick Perry about the age of the Earth, a not-so-subtle inquiry into his belief about evolution. Perry responded that both creationism and evolution were taught in Texas. The mother replied, "Ask him why he doesn't believe in science." Setting aside the tackiness of feeding political questions to a child, does she have a point? Is Perry anti-science? And, more generally, is the Republican Party anti-science?
Yes. But so are the Democrats.
Either way, science loses
Sadly, when science battles politics, science usually loses. And that is true regardless of political party.
Each campaign season, the same three hot-button science issues are tossed around like political footballs: evolution, global warming and embryonic stem cells. On these three issues, criticism of Republicans is fair...
The GOP should never cave to the conservatives within the party who deny evolution and global warming. There is simply no excuse for that. Expressing moral concerns over embryonic stem cell research is legitimate, but it is best to leave regulatory policy to stem cell biologists and bioethicists. Experts should be making those decisions, not politicians.
So Democrats might have a point if those three issues were all there was to science. Unfortunately for Democrats, their progressive political allies often hold blatantly anti-science beliefs themselves. And in some cases, progressives actively undermine technological progress.
The most extreme example is the anti-vaccination movement, which has gained new but incomplete attention in the controversy among Republican presidential candidates over the HPV vaccine. Empowered by those who believe the myth that only "natural things" are good for you, anti-vaccine activists routinely share common ground with organic food consumers. In fact, a public health official once noted that rates of vaccine non-compliance tend to be higher in places where Whole Foods is popular — and 89% of Whole Foods stores are located in counties that favored Barack Obama in 2008.
Federal health data suggest that anti-vaccine sentiment is more common in progressive areas. With the exception of Alaska, the states with the highest rates of vaccine refusal for kindergarteners are Washington, Vermont and Oregon — three of the most progressive states in the country.
Unlike denying evolution, refusing vaccinations can be deadly.
Progressives are also often against genetically modified food, despite its known benefits and widespread support among agricultural scientists and molecular biologists. Recently, eight U.S. senators — seven of whom were Democrats —wrote a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, threatening to halt approval of a genetically modified salmon. (Interestingly, most of the opponents are from the Pacific Northwest, while the company seeking FDA approval is based in Massachusetts.)
Nukes and PETA
We can also thank progressives for blocking the construction of nuclear power plants, even though nuclear power is supported by 70% of the scientific community. Ironically, they oppose this technology despite the fact it would help reduce carbon emissions and limit the impact of global warming.
Progressive organizations such as PETA are opposed to animal research, despite the fact that an overwhelming 93% of scientists support it. These progressives believe that the rights of animals should trump our desire to cure our loved ones affected by HIV, Alzheimer's or cancer.
In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.
Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
---
https://www.desmog.com/2011/09/27/unequivocal-today-s-right-overwhemingly-more-anti-science-today-s-left/
mooney 2011
Last week, I took to task a really poor USA Today op-ed making the following claim:
“In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.”
I accused the author, Alex Berezow, of constructing a false equivalence between right and left wing science abuse. The latter does occur sometimes, and I’ve given many examples (ionizing radiation risks, vaccines, GMOs, etc). But it has relatively little mainstream influence today—and can hardly compare with the sweeping denial of huge bodies of knowledge (e.g., all climate science, all evolutionary science) that we see on the right.
Joe Romm also reposted my post and weighed in, further trashing Berezow’s weak argument, and particularly on the nuclear power front. Paul Raeburn also weighed in at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, noting Berezow’s conservative media connections.
In the comments on my post (no longer available, as the blog has just moved to a new URL—please update!), and then in a subsequent post, another conservative—Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute—weighed in. Who is Kenneth Green?
Related Profile(s) :
Kenneth Green
==
june 2019 eg
we must be doing something right. ACSH has received so much media attention in the past several days, that we can barely keep up! Here's where we've appeared:
1) Our founder, Beth Whelan, was cited by Terence Corcoran in the Financial Post. He wrote a paragraph that is simply music to our ears:
FP Comment’s definition of junk science was adapted 21 years ago from the work of Elizabeth Whelan, founder of the American Council on Science and Health. Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.
2) Dr. Alex Berezow, Vice President of Scientific Affairs, will be featured in the second season of Masterminds, a series of web videos by BrainBar. (See the trailer above.) The organization is based in Budapest and hosts a gigantic annual conference that focuses on the future. Dr. Berezow spoke at the conference in 2018, in which he debunked the myth that humans will have to leave Earth.
3) Dr. Berezow also penned an op-ed for USA Today. He argued that the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada is the best place to store the nation's nuclear waste. However, instead of forcing the waste on Nevada, he said that we should pay "rent" to the citizens of the state.
4) An article by Erik Lief, Director of Communications, was cited by AccuWeather and UPI. The topic was the danger of heatstroke, particularly in pushing young athletes too far in hot weather. On average, since 2000, about two NCAA football athletes have died each year from heatstroke.
5) Dr. Berezow's article on the spread of a flesh-eating bacterium called Vibrio vulnificus was cited by the website for the Weather Channel. Some are concerned that this estuary-dwelling bacterium will spread as Earth's temperature rises, however, this is not likely to pose a significant problem. As Dr. Berezow wrote, "While climate change may slightly exacerbate the problem, the fact remains that V. vulnificus already inhabits much of the planet."
6) Dr. Josh Bloom's work on opioids was cited by the Waco Tribune-Herald. The author correctly concluded, "It would be tragic to restrict [opioid] use for those patients who genuinely need them." Unfortunately, our nation is doing just that. The article was also reprinted by the Salina Journal of Kansas....
==
==
begging for $, green death scam:
Big Fears Little Risks - Help Fund Our Documentary
"Big Fears Little Risks" is a documentary, but unlike most of what you see on places like Netflix, it is pro-science, and not scaremongering trace chemicals, food, or the modern world.
Instead, we note that humans are generally bad at evaluating risk while handing over much of our decision-making to "bubbles of eminence" in self-appointed groups who create guidelines; if the American Academy of Pediatrics says we are all bad parents by letting our children walk to school alone, many of us accept that. If organic food trade groups or their advocates say buying organic food will get your child into Harvard, some will do so - because the only cost is money.
But for many poor people, money is not a second order issue - a war on science and technology is a war on the poor, because they are impacted most by higher costs that derive from meaningless distinctions.
"Big Fears Little Risks" makes it safe to eat breakfast again, no matter how many trial lawyers in California want to sue over trace ingredients that have only ever harmed rats, and only at high doses.
---
usatoday links to wayback
REAL CLEAR SCIENCE WEDNESDAY
Value of Pi Calculated to 10 Trillion Digits - Julian Ryall, Telegraph
Accusations Fly Over Radiation Research - Marcel Crok, Science Insider
Trial Vaccine Cuts Malaria Risk by 50% - Kerry Sheridan, Cosmos
New Tech Tracks, Prevents Food Outbreaks - Ariel Schwartz, Fast Co.
World May Be Running Out of Clean Water - Bryan Walsh, Time
Killer Whales Make Waves to Hunt Seals - BBC News
More Friends Linked to More Gray Matter - Makiko Kitamura, Bloomberg
Positive Memories Are More Accurate - Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune
Yo-Yo Could Turn Building Into Energy Source - Chris Lee, Ars Technica
Report: Poor Safety Record in College Labs - Vergano & Korte, USA Today
Newton Blog: Dumb Things Grad Students Do in Lab
More RCSc: Facebook | Twitter | Mobile || Browse: Topic Index | Archive
The Latest Research
New Radar Tech Can See Through Walls - Mass. Institute of Technology
Common Brain Cell Labeling Technique Is Problematic - Nature News
Children, Not Chimps, Prefer Cooperation - Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Amazing Diversity of Microscopic Soil Animals - Nat'l Science Foundation
Real Clear Science Tuesday
Morning Update
'Occupy Wall St.' Facing Sanitation Issues - Janelle Vaesa, Decoded Science
In Search of Virus Fossils - Michael Schirber, Astrobiology Magazine
Lethal Virus Found in Wild Pacific Salmon - Dean & Nuwer, Seattle Times
Can Too Much Spicy Food Kill You? - Katharine Gammon, LL Mysteries
Politics Heating Up Over Labeling GM Foods - April Fulton, NPR
BPA Ban Is Anti-Science, Political Grandstanding - Jon Entine, HuffPo
Shooting For the Stars: Long-Distance Space Travel - Kenneth Chang, NYT
Examining the Galaxies in Our Universe - Ethan Siegel, ScienceBlogs
Moon's Shadow Creates a Wake - Timothy Wogan, Physics World
'Faster Than Light' Claim: Einstein Wins, Again? - Rebecca Boyle, PopSci
Newton Blog: Does Plate Size Affect How Much Food We Eat?
Afternoon Update
'Spaceport America' Opens in New Mexico - Guardian
'Anonymous' Interested in Hacking US Infrastructure - Kim Zetter, Wired
Sorry Ray Kurzweil, Singularity Isn't Near - Allen & Greaves, MIT Tech.
EU Stem Cell Ruling Good for US Research - Richard Willoughby, Telegraph
To Protect Baby's Brain, Turn Off the TV - Brandon Keim, Ars Technica
Are There Different Kinds of Female Orgasm? - Rose Eveleth, Scienceline
Real Clear Science Monday
Morning Update
When Will the 7 Billionth Person Be Born? - Fred Pearce, NewScientist
DNA Sequenced of 115-Year-Old Woman - Helen Briggs, BBC News
Single-Sex School Ban: Science or Activism? - Christina Sommers, USAT
E. O. Wilson Shakes Up Evolutionary Biology - Howard French, Atlantic
Magicians Teach Neuroscientists New Tricks - Mo Costandi, Guardian
Looming Peanut Butter Riots on Halloween? - Hank Campbell, Science 2.0
How Do We Know How Many Galaxies Exist? - Ethan Siegel, ScienceBlogs
Fukushima 'Hot Spots' Raise Unfounded Fears - Geoff Brumfiel, Nature
Is the Secret to Happiness Found in Our Genes, Race? - The Economist
Coveting Thy Neighbor's Wife: Cost-Benefit Analysis - John Tierney, NYT
Newton Blog: Dancing Scientists Are on to Something
Afternoon Update
Green Energy Policies Hurt the Middle Class - Lisa Margonelli, Slate
The Worst Kind of Poverty: Energy Poverty - Bryan Walsh, Time
MRSA Superbug: The Next Epidemic? - Robin Lloyd, Scientific American
FBI's DNA Database Upgrade Plans Under Fire - Paul Rincon, BBC News
Laser Analysis Identifies 'Blood' Diamonds - Devin Powell, Science News
AI Solves Complex Biology Problem - Sebastian Anthony, ExtremeTech
---
819 grab NO HANK
Thom Golab - President
Josh Bloom, Ph.D. - Senior Vice President
Alex Berezow, Ph.D. - Vice President of Scientific Communications
Cheryl E. Martin - Director of Operations
Chuck Dinerstein, M.D. - Director of Medicine
Christopher Gerry, Ph.D. - Senior Fellow of Medicinal Chemistry
Erik Lief - Director of Communications
Contact Info
Office phone: 212-362-7044 ext. 234
E-mail: liefe@acsh.org
Founders Circle
Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., M.S. (1943 – 2014)
Founder of the American Council on Science and Health
Years of Service: 1978-2014
Fredrick J. Stare, Ph.D. (1910 – 2002)
Founder, Harvard Department of Nutrition
Years of Service: 1978 – 2002
Norman E. Borlaug, Ph.D. (1914 – 2009)
Father of the "Green Revolution", Nobel Laureate
Years of Service: 1978 – 2009
Board of Trustees
Chairman: Nigel Bark, M.D. Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Vice Chairman: Steven Modzelewski, Maple Engine LLC
Trustees:
Tanya Dorhout, Vice President, Bank Finance and Treasury, Goldman Sachs
James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. University of California, Los Angeles
Thom Golab, President, American Council on Science and Health
Fred L. Smith Jr., Competitive Enterprise Institute
Daniel T. Stein, M.D. Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Thomas P. Stossel, M.D., American Cancer Society Prof. of Medicine, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School
Stephen T. Whelan, Blank Rome LLP
American Council on Science and Health Board of Scientific Advisors:
Ernest L. Abel, Ph.D.
C.S. Mott Center
Gary R. Acuff, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Casimir C. Akoh, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
Peter C. Albersen, M.D.
University of Connecticut
Julie A. Albrecht, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Philip Alcabes, Ph.D.
Hunter College, CUNY
James E. Alcock, Ph.D.
Glendon College, York University (Canada)
Thomas S. Allems, M.D., M.P.H.
San Francisco, CA
Richard G. Allison, Ph.D.
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
John B. Allred, Ph.D.
Ohio State University
Karl E. Anderson, M.D.
University of Texas, Medical Branch
Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Helvetia, WV
Dennis T. Avery
Hudson Institute
Ronald Bachman, M.D.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
David A. Baker, M.D.
Stony Brook University Medical School
Robert S. Baratz, D.D.S., Ph.D., M.D.
International Medical Consultation Services
Robert Bard, MD, DABR, FASLMS
Director, Bard Cancer Center
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Pittsboro, NC
Thomas G. Baumgartner, Pharm.D., M.Ed.
Consultant Pharmacists of America
W. Lawrence Beeson, Dr.P.H.
Loma Linda University
Sir Colin Berry, D.Sc., Ph.D., M.D.
Pathological Institute, Royal London Hospital (United Kingdom)
William S. Bickel, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Steven Black, M.D.
Cincinnati Children’s Health Medical Center
Blaine L. Blad, Ph.D.
Kanosh, UT
Ben Bolch, Ph.D.
Rhodes College
Joseph F. Borzelleca, Ph.D.
Medical College of Virginia
Michael K. Botts, Esq.
Alexandria, VA
George A. Bray, M.D.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
Ronald W. Brecher, Ph.D., C.Chem., DABT, QPRA
MTE/GlobalTox (Canada)
William M. Briggs, Ph.D, M.S.
Cornell University
Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D.
Kbinc
Christine M. Bruhn, Ph.D.
University of California
Gale A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
Edward E. Burns, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Francis F. Busta, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
Elwood F. Caldwell, Ph.D., M.B.A.
University of Minnesota
Zerle L. Carpenter, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University System
Ercole L. Cavalieri, D.Sc.
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Russell N. A. Cecil, M.D., Ph.D.
Albany Medical College
Rino Cerio, M.D.
Barts and The London Hospital Institute of Pathology (United Kingdom)
Sam K. C. Chang, Ph.D.
Mississippi State University
Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
David A. Christopher, Ph.D.
University of Hawaii at Mãnoa
Emil William Chynn, M.D.
New York Eye and Ear Infirmary
F. M. Clydesdale, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts
Donald G. Cochran, Ph.D.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
W. Ronnie Coffman, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Gerald F. Combs, Jr., Ph.D.
USDA Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center
Gregory Conko, J.D.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michael D. Corbett, Ph.D.
Omaha, NE
Nancy Cotugna, Dr.Ph., R.D., C.D.N.
University of Delaware
H. Russell Cross, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
William J. Crowley, Jr., M.D., M.B.A.
Spicewood, TX
James W. Curran, M.D., M.P.H.
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University
Charles R. Curtis, Ph.D.
Ohio State University
Jerry M. Cuttler, D.Sc., PEng
Cuttler & Associates Inc.
Taiwo K. Danmola, C.P.A.
Ernst & Young
Ilene R. Danse, M.D.
Bolinas, CA
Sherrill Davison, V.M.D., M.D., M.B.A.
University of Pennsylvania
Peter C. Dedon, M.D., Ph.D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D.
University of Houston
Elvira G. de Mejia, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Merle L. Diamond, M.D.
Diamond Headache Clinic
Seymour Diamond, M.D.
Diamond Headache Clinic
Ralph Dittman, M.D., M.P.H.
Houston, TX
John E. Dodes, D.D.S.
National Council Against Health Fraud
Michael Dourson, Ph.D.
TERA.org
Theron W. Downes, Ph.D.
Seneca, SC
Michael P. Doyle, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Michael A. Dubick, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research
Greg Dubord, M.D., M.P.H.
Toronto Center for Cognitive Therapy (Canada)
Edward R. Duffie, Jr., M.D.
Savannah, GA
Leonard J. Duhl. M.D.
University of California, Berkeley
James R. Dunn, Ph.D.
Averill Park, NY
Herbert L. DuPont, M.D.
St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital
Robert L. DuPont, M.D.
Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.
Michael W. Easley, D.D.S., M.P.H.
International Health Management & Research Associates
Michael P. Elston, M.D., M.S.
Rapid City, SD
William N. Elwood, Ph.D.
NIH/Center for Scientific Review
Edward A. Emken, Ph.D.
Midwest Research Consultants
Nicki J. Engeseth, Ph.D.
University of Illinois
Stephen K. Epstein, M.D., M.P.P., FACEP
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
R. Gregory Evans, Ph.D., M.P.H.
St. Louis University Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Infections
Daniel F. Farkas, Ph.D., M.S., P.E.
Oregon State University
Richard S. Fawcett, Ph.D.
Huxley, IA
Seymour Fein, M.D.
Managing Partner, CNF Pharma
Frederick L. Ferris III, M.D.
National Eye Institute
David N. Ferro, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts
Madelon L. Finkel, Ph.D.
Cornell University Medical College
Harry Fisch, M.D.
Weill-Cornell Medical College / New York Presbyterian Hospital
Jack C. Fisher, M.D., F.A.C.S.
University of California, San Diego, Emeritus
Leonard T. Flynn, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Morganville, NJ
William H. Foege, M.D., M.P.H.
Seattle, WA
Christopher H. Foreman, Jr., Ph.D.
University of Maryland
Shawn N. Fraser, Ph.D.
Athabasca University (Canada)
Glenn W. Froning, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Robert S. Gable, Ed.D., Ph.D., J.D.
Claremont Graduate University
Shayne C. Gad, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.
Gad Consulting Services
William G. Gaines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.
Scott & White Clinic
K. H. Ginzel, M.D.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Robert Glatter, M.D.
Lenox Hill Hospital / North Shore LIJ
William Paul Glezen, M.D.
Baylor College of Medicine
Jay A. Gold, M.D., J.D., M.P.H.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Roger E. Gold, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Reneé M. Goodrich, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D.
The George Washington University Medical Center
Timothy N. Gorski, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
University of North Texas
Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D.
International Center for Toxicology and Medicine
Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D.
Duke University
James Ian Gray, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
William W. Greaves, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Laura C. Green, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Cambridge Environmental, Inc.
Gordon W. Gribble, Ph.D.
Dartmouth College
F. Peter Guengerich, Ph.D.
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Caryl J. Guth, M.D.
Advance, NC
Philip S. Guzelian, M.D.
University of Colorado
David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
State University of New York, Potsdam
William Happer, Ph.D
Princeton University
Terryl J. Hartman, Ph.D., M.P.H., R.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Clare Hasler-Lewis, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Davis, CA
Virgil W. Hays, Ph.D.
University of Kentucky
Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
American Cancer Society
Dwight B. Heath, Ph.D.
Brown University
Robert Heimer, Ph.D.
Yale School of Public Health
Robert B. Helms, Ph.D.
American Enterprise Institute
Zane R. Helsel, Ph.D.
Rutgers University, Cook College
James D. Herbert, Ph.D.
Drexel University
Theodore R. Holford, Ph.D.
Yale University School of Medicine
Robert M. Hollingworth, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Edward S. Horton, M.D.
Joslin Diabetes Center/Harvard Medical School
Joseph H. Hotchkiss, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Clifford A. Hudis, MD.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Peter Barton Hutt, Esq.
Covington & Burling, LLP
Susanne L. Huttner, Ph.D.
KE Squared
Lucien R. Jacobs, M.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Alejandro R. Jadad, M.D., D.Phil., F.R.C.P.C.
University of Toronto (Canada)
Rudolph J. Jaeger, Ph.D.
Environmental Medicine, Inc.
Michele Jay-Russell, D.V.M., M.P.V.M., Ph.D.
University of California, Davis
Elizabeth H. Jeffery, P.h.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Geoffrey C. Kabat, Ph.D.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
John B. Kaneene, Ph.D., M.P.H., D.V.M.
Michigan State University
P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP
MJW Corporation
Mark A. Katchen, M.S., M.B.A., C.I.H.
The Phylmar Group
Ruth Kava, Ph.D.
Emeritus Senior Nutrition Fellow, ACSH
Kathryn E. Kelly, Dr.P.H.
Delta Toxicology
Kenneth Offit, M.D., M.P.H.
Clinical Genetics Service – Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
George A. Keyworth II, Ph.D.
Carmel, CA
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
Highland Heights, OH
John C. Kirschman, Ph.D.
Allentown, PA
William M. P. Klein, Ph.D.
University of Pittsburgh
Ronald E. Kleinman, M.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School
Leslie M. Klevay, M.D., S.D. in Hyg.
University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences
David M. Klurfeld, Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Kathryn M. Kolasa, Ph.D., R.D.
East Carolina University
James S. Koopman, M.D, M.P.H.
University of Michigan School of Public Health
Alan R. Kristal, Dr.P.H.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Manfred Kroger, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Carolyn J. Lackey, Ph.D., R.D.
North Carolina State University
J. Clayburn LaForce, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Robert G. Lahita, M.D., Ph.D.
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
James C. Lamb, IV, Ph.D., J.D.
Exponent
Lawrence E. Lamb, M.D.
San Antonio, TX
William E. M. Lands, Ph.D.
College Park, MD
Brian A. Larkins, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Larry Laudan, Ph.D.
University of Texas
Red Lawhern, Ph.D.
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D.
Environmental Education Enterprises, Inc.
Lindsey Leininger, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher Mathematica Policy Research
Brian C. Lentle, M.D., FRCPC, DMRD
University of British Columbia (Canada)
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Emory University
Floy Lilley, J.D.
Fernandina Beach, FL
Fred W. Lipfert, Ph.D.
Independent Environmental Consultant
William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H.
California State University, Los Angeles
Sam Lubner, M.D, FACP
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
William M. Lunch, Ph.D.
Oregon State University
John Lupien, M.Sc.
University of Massachusetts
Janet E. Macheledt, M.D., M.S., M.P.H.
Houston, TX
Karl Maramorosch, Ph.D.
Rutgers University, Cook College
Judith A. Marlett, Ph.D., R.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Lawrence J., Marnett, Ph.D.
Vanderbilt University
James R. Marshall, Ph.D.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Roger O. McClellan, D.V.M., M.M.S., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T., F.A.T.S.
Albuquerque, NM
Leah McGrath, Corporate Retail Dietitian,
Former Army and Public Health Dietitian
Mary H. McGrath, M.D., M.P.H.
University of California, San Francisco
Alan G. McHughen, D.Phil.
University of California, Riverside
James D. McKean, D.V.M., J.D.
Iowa State University
Joseph P. McMenamin, M.D., J.D.
McGuireWoods, LLP
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.
Cato Institute
Joseph M. Miller, M.D., M.P.H.
Durham, NH
Richard A. Miller, M.D.
Principia Biopharma, Inc.
Richard K. Miller, Ph.D.
University of Rochester
William J. Miller, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D.
Institute for Regulatory Science
Grace P. Monaco, J.D.
Medical Care Ombudsman Program
Brian E. Mondell, M.D.
Baltimore Headache Institute
John W. Morgan, Dr.P.H.
California Cancer Registry
Stephen J. Moss, D.D.S., M.S.
New York University College of Dentistry
Brooke T. Mossman, Ph.D.
University of Vermont College of Medicine
Peter W. Mullen, Ph.D., FCSFS
Kemic Bioresearch
Allison A. Muller, Pharm.D.
Acri Muller Consulting
Harris M. Nagler, M.D.
Beth Israel Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Daniel J. Ncayiyana, M.D.
Benguela Health (South Africa)
Philip E. Nelson, Ph.D.
Purdue University
Joyce A. Nettleton, D.Sc., R.D.
Denver, CO
John S. Neuberger, Dr.P.H.
University of Kansas School of Medicine
Thomas Nicholson, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Western Kentucky University
Theresa A. Nicklas, Dr.P.H.
Baylor College of Medicine
Albert G. Nickel
LyonHeart (ret.)
Robert J. Nicolosi, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
James L. Oblinger, Ph.D.
North Carolina State University
Kenneth Offit, M.D., M.P.H.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
John Patrick O’Grady, M.D.
Tufts University School of Medicine
Stanley T. Omaye, Ph.D., F.A.T.S., F.ACN, C.N.S.
University of Nevada, Reno
Michael T. Osterholm, Ph.D., M.P.H.
University of Minnesota
Michael W. Pariza, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Tim Pastoor, Ph.D.,DABT
Toxicologist, Pastoor Science Communications, LLC
Stuart Patton, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Mikko Paunio, Ph.D.
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland
James Marc Perrin, M.D.
Mass General Hospital for Children
Jay Phelan, M.D.
Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering Group
Timothy Dukes Phillips, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
David R. Pike, Ph.D.
Champaign, IL
Henry C. Pitot, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Thomas T. Poleman, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Gary P. Posner, M.D.
Tampa, FL
John J. Powers, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
William D. Powrie, Ph.D.
University of British Columbia (Canada)
C.S. Prakash, Ph.D.
Tuskegee University
Marvin P. Pritts, Ph.D.
Cornell University
David W. Ramey, D.V.M.
Ramey Equine Group
R.T. Ravenholt, M.D., M.P.H.
Population Health Imperatives
Russel J. Reiter, Ph.D.
University of Texas, San Antonio
William Reville, Ph.D.
University College Cork (Ireland)
Donald R. Roberts, Ph.D.
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Brad Rodu, D.D.S.
University of Louisville
Bill D. Roebuck, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Dartmouth Medical School
Donald R. Rogers, M.D.
Anchorage, AK
David B. Roll, Ph.D.
Colleyville, TX
Dale R. Romsos, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D.
Cook College, Rutgers University
Steven T. Rosen, M.D.
Northwestern University Medical School
Gilbert Ross, M.D.
Emeritus Senior Director of Medicine and Public Health, ACSH
Stanley Rothman, Ph.D.
Smith College
Stephen H. Safe, D.Phil.
Texas A&M University
Mark “Jason” Sanders, M.D.
University of Texas Medical School
Harold H. Sandstead, M.D.
University of Texas Medical Branch
Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D.
Purdue University
Lowell D. Satterlee, Ph.D.
Vergas, MN
Mark V. Sauer, M.D.
Columbia University
Jeffrey W. Savell, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Marvin J. Schissel, D.D.S.
Roslyn Heights, NY
Frank Schnell, PhD
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (retired)
David Schottenfeld, M.D., M.Sc.
University of Michigan
Joel M. Schwartz, M.S.
Reason Public Policy Institute
David E. Seidemann, Ph.D.
Brooklyn College/Yale University
David Shlaes, M.D., Ph.D.
Anti-Infectives Consulting LLC
David A. Shaywitz, M.D., Ph.D.
DNAnexus
Patrick J. Shea, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Michael B. Shermer, Ph.D.
Skeptic Magazine
Robert L. Shewfelt, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Food Science and Technology, University of Georgia
Sarah Short, Ph.D., Ed.D., R.D.
Syracuse University
Michael Siegel, M.D., M.P.H.
Boston University School of Pubic Health
Lee M. Silver, Ph.D.
Princeton University
Michael S. Simon, M.D., M.P.H.
Wayne State University
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Philadelphia, PA
Anne M. Smith, Ph.D., R.D., L.D.
Ohio State University
Gary C. Smith, Ph.D.
Colorado State University
John N. Sofos, Ph.D.
Colorado State University
Laszlo P Somogyi, Ph.D.
SRI International (ret.)
Roy F. Spalding, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Leonard T. Sperry, M.D., Ph.D.
Florida Atlantic University
Ronald T. Stanko, M.D.
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Robert D. Steele, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Judith S. Stern, Sc.D., R.D.
University of California, Davis
Stephen S. Sternberg, M.D.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Ronald D. Stewart, O.C., M.D., FRCPC
Dalhousie University (Canada)
Martha Barnes Stone, Ph.D.
Colorado State University
Jon A. Story, Ph.D.
Purdue University
Sita R. Tatini, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
Dick Taverne
House of Lords, United Kingdom
Steve L. Taylor, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Lynn M. Tepper, Ed.D, Ph.D.
Columbia University
Lorraine Thelian
Ketchum, Inc.
Kimberly M. Thompson, Sc.D.
Harvard School of Public Health
Andrea D. Tiglio, Ph.D., J.D.
Townsend and Townsend and Crew, LLP
James E. Tillotson, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Tufts University
Maria Trainer, Ph.D.,
Managing Director, Science and Regulatory Affairs, Chemistry, CropLife Canada
Dimitrios Trichopoulos, M.D.
Harvard School of Public Health
Robert P. Upchurch, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Mark J. Utell, M.D.
University of Rochester Medical Center
Shashi B. Verma, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Willard J. Visek, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Illinois College of Medicine
Lynn Waishwell, Ph.D., CHES
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Public Health
Miles Weinberger, M.D.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
John Weisburger, Ph.D.
New York Medical College
Janet S. Weiss, M.D.
The ToxDoc
Simon Wessely, M.D., FRCP
King’s College London and Institute of Psychiatry (United Kingdom)
Steven D. Wexner, M.D.
Cleveland Clinic Florida
Christine Whelan, Ph.D.
Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
John S. White, Ph.D.
White Technical Research
Kenneth L. White, Ph.D.
Utah State University
Carol Whitlock, Ph.D., R.D.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Mark L. Willenbring, M.D.
Saint Paul. MN
James K. Womack, Jr., M.S., M.M.A.S.
Sanford, NC
James J. Worman, Ph.D.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Russell S. Worrall, O.D.
University of California, Berkeley
S. Stanley Young, Ph.D.
National Institute of Statistical Science
Steven H. Zeisel, M.D., Ph.D.
The University of North Carolina
Michael B. Zemel, Ph.D.
Nutrition Institute, University of Tennessee
Ekhard E. Ziegler, M.D.
University of Iowa