Science ? (was: Apologies to Mark and other

[philip@prcn.org (Philip Fleischer)]

David Ross wrote:

>Well, I guess I have learned something from the messages both posted here and

I have learned from this list too.  That's part of the deal and even
if you are not a 'dioxin activist' yourself, it might be a good reason to
stay on the list.  (And I've been 'floored' by a thing or two on or in
connection with this list too.)

>and too are a very suspicious lot:  people with advanced degrees are suspect,
>as is a professional corporate connection.  At least in the minds of some

I don't think advanced degrees themselves are suspect, they are just not
the automatic credibility ticket among this crowd that they might be among
others.  There are in fact some advanced degrees kicking around amongst the
'activist' rabble themselves.

>respondents science itself is not to be trusted.  The cause seems to be all
>important, almost a way of life, and I wondered as I read some of the messages

 Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides,
 it hides most effectively from its own participants. -E T Hall

Corporate culture is not a neutral perspective from which to view the world
either.  This comes as such a profound shock to some of its inmates but others
of us sometimes have a hard time keeping a straight face when we try to
explain it to them.

The industry's initiative to have dioxin reassessed is the classic of
mandated science for the decade.  Peter Montague (who has advanced degrees
by the way) compared it to the Vatican telling Galileo to restate what
was the centre of the universe.  And there are smaller mandated science
projects like the JH P&P.  We have what must be its twin out of the BC
Cancer Agency (Band et al.)  While there is also a researcher nearby
with the pre work done to measure dioxin in serum of millworkers and
others here which would plug in nicely with Dieter Flesch-Janys study of
occupational exposure (142 American Journal of Epidemiology 1165-1175
December 1, 1995), but it seems the funding is sticky--I think because of
the political effect of the expected results.  (Flesch-Janys does indeed
find that occupational dioxin exposure causes cancer as I expect the same
investigation would if done in our local pulp mill.)  Edidemiological results
around dioxin not only vary but contradict.  Quit in contrast to what you
see, I find dioxin activists developing some very refined scientific
critique.  This should not be surprising.  The area is so loaded with such
material.  The examples are actually getting better than what the tobacco
industry used to come up with.



Philip Fleischer   philip@prcn.org