Group Of More Than 100 Epidemiologists Say Criticisms Of IARC Monograph Process Are “Unconvincing”

"The small number of scientists who have been publicly critical of the IARC were not invited because ‘they have had their say’ and it was thought their inclusion would only lead to polarization and not be productive for the review process."

--

Group Of More Than 100 Epidemiologists Say Criticisms Of IARC Monograph Process Are “Unconvincing”

EpiMonitor, Feb 2015

“As a group of international scientists, we have looked carefully at the charges of flaws and bias in the hazard evaluations by IARC Working Groups and found them unconvincing.”

This conclusion has been reached by 126 epidemiologists and scientists writing in an upcoming issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Led by Neil Pearce, Aaron Blair, and Paolo Vineis the multi-authored review of the IARC process used to classify potential carcinogenic agents looked at four types of criticisms that have been made about the process. The four categories of criticisms  were:

1) Criticisms of epidemiology as a science

2) Attacks on the IARC process

3) Criticisms of specific IARC evaluations

4) Criticisms of the composition of the IARC workgroups.

None of the criticisms were determined to be well-founded. According to the report, “Debate and criticism facilitate self-correction and a check on the validity in science. We are concerned, however, that the criticisms expressed by a vocal minority regarding the evaluations of a few agents may promote the denigration of a process that has served the public and public health well for many decades for reasons which are not supported by the data.”

Why The Review

The review was undertaken in response to criticisms of epidemiology in general, and IARC in particular, which Pearce described to The Epidemiology Monitor as having “got worse in the last 5-10 years.” These criticisms have not been occurring in a vacuum, he said, but in a context of increasing concern about industry-funded attacks. Pearce should know because his work has been under attack several times over the years, often from industry related sources, and he has written before to defend epidemiology and his own work.

What worried Pearce about recent attacks, he told the Monitor, is that criticisms have been leveled not only against individual studies but against well-respected institutions such as IARC. “We thought that IARC was doing a good job,” he said, “so we needed people to look objectively at it [IARC process].”

Pearce was quick to point out that he and his co-authors are not against criticism which is important for IARC and for the scientific process. Criticism is always around he said but when critiques are published just before the beginning of an IARC process, then this reflects a more deliberate and calculated type of attack.

Invitations To Review

The authors of the review were invited to join the process by Pearce, Blair, and Vineis because they were known to be involved in occupational and environmental cancer research—a kind of Who’s Who in that subspecialty. They drew up a list and invited everyone on the list, excluding IARC employees. Almost no invitees declined the opportunity to participate in the review, including epidemiologists and scientists who strongly disagreed with IARC about specific topics, said Pearce. Everyone ended up supporting the process as the “best around”. The small number of scientists who have been publicly critical of the IARC were not invited because ‘they have had their say’ and it was thought their inclusion would only lead to polarization and not be productive for the review process. 

Each of the 126 co-authors took responsibility for the findings according to Pearce. All sent comments, many of which led to helpful revisions. The whole exercise took about 1 year and everyone contributed something to the final product, he said.

The paper will appear shortly in Environmental Health Perspectives. To access the paper after publication, visit:  http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov  ■

http://www.epimonitor.net/Criticisms-of-IARC-Monograph.htm

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:               http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:   http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc