The credibility of the peer review process has come under vehement attack. Scientists who receive no-strings-attached financial support for their research from demonized industries – tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and food, among others – are no longer deemed trustworthy.
Apparently, the rigors of the peer review process – even in the world’s best science and medical journals – in addition to full disclosure requirements, isn’t enough to prevent “biased” studies from being published. Activists – displeased with results that undermine their agenda – cry bias, and prestigious science and health organizations cave, preferring to appease the advocates, rather than allow the scientific method to weed out bad science.
One of the country’s most distinguished cancer organizations has succumbed to the prohibitionist faction of the anti-tobacco movement’s demagogic rhetoric. Accepting and adopting these crusaders’ guilt-by-association arguments at face value, rather than identifying flaws in the research results they oppose.
Earlier this year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) passed a resolution barring scientists who receive financial support from the tobacco industry from receiving ACS grants. Responding to news of the resolution, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan warned ACS (see letter below) against their injurious adoption of such a litmus test. Using funding as a basis for rejection is detrimental to the process of providing unbiased, peer-reviewed health information.
Such policies have unseen costs and unintended consequences. They may produce biased research by cherry-picking authors and results and confusing public debate – mirroring the tobacco industry’s stratagem. Further, they set a dangerous precedent by giving opponents of sound science a new weapon. If the science is faulty, we should use science itself, not ad hominem or innuendo, to detect the problems.
ACS’s response to our criticsm? Six months later, we’re still waiting. Regardless of whether we ever receive a reply, we hope ACS got the message. Putting science ahead of ideology is best for cancer patients as well as the general public, who rely on good science – that which is able to survive the rigors of peer review – not simply good intentions.
Scientists who study nutrition paint a very different picture.
A new version of a popular test for cancer-causing agents is cheaper, more sensitive and, best of all, animal-free, thanks to a U of G researcher. Prof. David Josephy, Chemistry and Biochemistry, has developed a way of testing substances for cancer-causing potential without using animal tissue. Instead, his version of the Ames test involves gene splicing.
More men are developing breast cancer – but most fail to spot tumours until they are at an advanced stage, a study has warned. University of Texas research found that, while men are far less likely to develop breast tumours than women, the numbers are increasing. Writing in an online edition of the journal Cancer, they warn men seem to be unaware they can develop the cancer.
COMPANY
LOS ANGELES- the Postal Service unveiled the design of the Breast Cancer Research “Semipostal” Stamp, here, at the Revlon Run and Walk for Women on May 9th. A nationwide issuance of this self-adhesive stamp begins in early August.
BACKGROUND: Harvard researchers reported in a 2002 article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that eating tomato products on a regular basis is associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer. The research included more than 47,000 participants. Researchers then continued to follow the men for several more years to learn more about the specific foods that seem to protect men from prostate cancer. That research was published this year — also in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study reports men who ate tomato sauce at least twice a week were about 20-percent less likely to develop prostate cancer when compared to men who rarely ate it.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /PRNewswire/ — The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, credited as the nation’s leading catalyst in the fight against breast cancer, released today a non-partisan comparison of key health care proposals announced by Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in their quest for the Presidency. The comparison is based on answers to a health care questionnaire designed by the Komen Foundation, to which both campaigns responded. The Foundation hopes that the side-by-side analysis of the candidates’ varying proposals will assist voters in comparing and contrasting the approach each would take to important health care issues impacting women and families.


