ACSH Defended

front groups

Letter from Roger P. Maickel, Ph.D.

As a career professional scientist with more than 30 years of tenured service at two Big Ten universities plus a decade as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, I feel qualified to challenge your criticism of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) as expressed in your Fourth Quarter 1998 issue.

First of all, I have been a member of the ACSH Board of Directors for a number of years and a Scientific Advisor virtually since its inception. Your selective description of the ACSH Board of Directors carefully omitted Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug (originator of the "Green Revolution"), the eminent Dr. Robert White of Case Western Reserve University and other eminent scientists. The policies of the ACSH are not determined solely by the Board members you actively criticized.

Secondly, the ACSH is completely "up front" about its sources of funding. In contrast, I would suggest that you attempt to obtain a complete list of the individuals and/or organizations who fund the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Thirdly, I would suggest that you should actually count the number of ACSH Scientific Advisors who are in academic departments of "food science and technology." They are a very small minority. Indeed, the breadth of sciences covered by this group is literally astounding--literally an alphabet of biological and medical sciences, medicine, nursing, engineering, etc. We all contribute to the peer-review process for ACSH publications, just as we do to numerous professional journals.

A major portion of the ACSH overall effort is devoted to presenting materials that enhance the public understanding of science from a perspective of unbiased evaluation of the complete scientific literature, not from a selective, pre-biased viewpoint.

Roger P. Maickel, Ph.D., FRSC
Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology

PR Watch responds: Drs. Borlaug and White are indeed eminent in their fields, a fact which in no way contradicts ACSH's documented pro-industry bias. Indeed, our Fourth Quarter 1998 issue detailed the ways that ACSH has been able to advance its right-wing agenda through its associations with the distinguished former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Space did not permit us to to analyze the role of every individual who is affiliated with ACSH.

As for the claim that ACSH is "completely 'up front' about its sources of funding," that is not what we were told when we contacted the ACSH office on December 23, 1998, to ask for a list of its institutional funders. ACSH Associate Director Jeff Stier refused to provide a list, stating that to do so would have a "prejudicial effect" on our readers. ACSH once did have a policy of publicly disclosing its funders, but that policy was abandoned years ago. As a member of the ACSH Board of Directors, Dr. Maickel ought to know this.

Dr. Maickel's dig at CSPI notwithstanding, the fact remains that CSPI offers better funding disclosure than ACSH, because CSPI discloses its institutional funders. If Dr. Maickel believes that nonprofit organizations should also disclose all of their individual donors (a highly unusual practice, since most groups allow individuals to give anonymously), he should at least have the integrity to do the same on behalf of his own organization.

Sandman's Cagey Tactics

Letter from Judy Treichel and Steve Frishman

Prior to reading your First Quarter 1999 issue, we had never heard of Peter Sandman by name. His tactics, however, bore a familiar ring.

The State of Nevada has long opposed efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and the commercial nuclear industry to turn our state into a national dump site for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Sandman's advice to the DOE sounds exactly like the strategy taken a few years ago when the Secretary of Energy announced that there would be a "citizen advisory panel" to discuss the Yucca Mountain project. The real purpose of the panel was to invite opponents of the site such as ourselves to draft standards that would make the Yucca Mountain program acceptable.

We were also invited to workshops in which government, industry and public representatives were supposed to "prioritize your values." Then we were supposed to "trade off" our values in order to reach an acceptable compromise. Our response was to "just say no." We were then told that we were being "unreasonable." In our opinion, however, dumping nuclear waste on an unwilling community is itself an unreasonable action.

DOE also appears to have taken Sandman's advice on how to play the role of what he calls the "caged beast." We decided to control the beast on our own terms and not play with a Cheshire cat.

We urge all public advocates and public interest groups to carefully read and understand how Sandman and his "outrage" neutralization schemes work. Don't be fooled. Outrage can be good. Keep it and use it.