Re: Science and Industry

[rtkp@ptialaska.net]

I sent:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A good example is a recent study at Johns Hopkins of health among
>pulp mill workers. Results which support the hypothesis (pulpmills
>are harmless to workers) are published.  Results which might show
>that there are increased risks of certain types of cancers are either
>suppressed or not followed up.  The study is paid for by the Pulp and
>Paper industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reply from Kathy Gill
I'm curious, Eric. Since the study was designed and executed entirely
by Johns Hopkins, an institution that values its credibility, I would
appreciate knowing if you have expressed these concerns to John
Hopkins and citations to support your conclusions.

Moreover, as I am certain you know, the first phase of the study did
identify some areas of concern and there is ongoing research. I
haven't heard the unions (those people directly affected) expressing
these opinions/conclusions.

Kathy E. Gill
(who did work for P/P during the time of the study)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:
I talked to various folks at JH, trying to get access to the data
from this project and, as I'm sure you are aware, the results of this
study belong to PP, not to John's Hopkins. That means that they
weren't disclosable.  JH was unwilling to provide any data beyond
what was OKed by the paying organization.  While this makes perfect
sense from an economic stand point (you get what you pay for), from a
scientific standpoint it leave a bit to be desired.

My point is to contrast this form of pay for the product "science"
and real science where illumiation of the subject in all its
complexity and even ugliness is the goal.  You will never get real
understanding of whats going on if the results that aren't
"politically correct" are suppressed.  This is hardly a novel thought
on either side.  We get it from Dr. Bill et al, too.

Let not get too hypocritical here. The goal should be for all of us
to find a "solution".  Without real science, not this phony stuff,
the problem will be recognizing it.

regards,
eric hummel
>rtkp@ptialaska.net