The US chemical industry is worth an impressive $600Bn or more per year. A large share of this comes from the increasingly notorious PFAS compounds. Research links PFAS to severe health issues. As a result, we see an increasing number of lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers. So, how has the industry reacted to this? According to recent news articles, their reaction has been exactly as expected: pay willing scientists and “experts” to sow doubt and confusion over the facts. Here, we explain why you should always be careful when assessing research and how to tell the good from the bad when it comes to PFAS science.
Science is a thousand shades of gray
Members of the public might assume that scientists deal with cold, hard facts. Something is either proven, or disproven. However, the reality is more nuanced, with scientists having to weigh contradictory or confusing evidence and make judgements. Science, especially medical research, actually has many shades of gray. Businesses have long taken advantage of this confusion when it comes to their reaction to contentious issues.
The good, the bad and the ugly of research
History is littered with examples of Big Industry trying to confuse the public over the risks of their products. Probably the best known examples are the tobacco industry and asbestos manufacturers. In both cases, there were concerted efforts made to conceal, confuse, and condemn the science. Yet, the reality was that both tobacco and asbestos products were killing millions of people worldwide. So, let’s look at some of the tactics they used.
Concealment
Since the 1950s, the tobacco industry has known that cigarette smoking was linked with lung cancer and many other diseases. The response was a concerted and successful effort to conceal the research from the general public. This was done by funding studies that downplayed the negative health effects of smoking. Unfavorable research findings were manipulated or suppressed. Results that were favorable or fit their narrative were published and amplified. It took a few decades before people began to realize the true harm that tobacco causes. Even today, the tobacco industry is successfully lobbying against anti-smoking legislation in many countries.
Confusion
Another well-known tactic is to sow confusion about the quality or reliability of the research. They find scientists who are prepared to argue against the generally accepted opinion of the scientific community. This is easier than you might think, as scientists are often biased due to their own beliefs or funding sources. Having created contradictory research, they brief against the research they don’t like. This takes advantage of the way mainstream media organizations present both sides of an argument as having equal validity. Also, they appeal to political concepts like “freedom” or “liberalism” to argue against legislative controls.
Condemnation
The final tactic in the playbook is to condemn the scientists who hold views they don’t like. This works best when the science is still relatively new. This allows them to run stories about “scaremongering” scientists. You only have to look at how climate change is still being reported in some media to see this in action. Eventually, this approach will fail, but it can push back the day of reckoning by many years, even decades.
So what is the chemical industry doing about PFAS research?
According to reports, the chemical industry is following the classic playbook to sow doubt about the risks of PFAS. They also take advantage of the way the US system relies on case law and lawsuits. In a lawsuit, even a relatively low level of doubt helps–all they need to do is convince one or more jury members that the science isn’t proven.
Recently, Michael Dourson, the former Trump appointee for the EPA’s chemical safety division, has been doing the rounds lobbying against the EPA’s PFAS limits. He’s also supporting a new lawsuit challenging this EPA legislation. Dourson runs Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), an NGO largely funded by the chemical industry. According to the Guardian Newspaper:
“Micheal Dourson [...] sent an email to scientists, consultants and lawyers detailing a plan to develop and publish peer-reviewed science for chemical companies to wield as evidence against PFAS limits.”
In effect, he revealed the industry tactics being wielded against PFAS legislation. So, what is he recommending?
Casting doubt on the quality of evidence
PFAS isn’t a short term toxin, so scientists are forced to turn to epidemiology to draw conclusions about the long term health effects. This means looking at the statistics across populations and drawing conclusions about both correlation and causation of disease. Epidemiological studies always have some degree of uncertainty since they are based on probabilities. And there are always scientists prepared to publish papers that go against the mainstream. All the industry has to do is find these scientists, and pay them to do research that aligns with the company’s interests.
Creating journals to publish pro-PFAS research
So, what about getting the research “peer reviewed”? Peer review means that the article has been reviewed by a number of other scientists who all accepted that the research was accurate, well scoped, and valid. However, not all journals are as high quality as Cell or the New England Journal of Medicine. In fact, industry bodies also set up their own “peer reviewed” journals, which have a habit of publishing articles that align with the industry interests. As the Guardian states:
“Dourson’s July email cites the legal challenge to the new regulations, then adds ‘a couple approaches can be used to support [it], but nearly all of them require peer-reviewed and published papers before serious consideration’. [...] The papers will later this year be ‘published as the first issue of [a] new journal’ being established to first provide ‘support’ for the legal challenge.“
So, how can you avoid getting bamboozled by misleading research?
The most important lesson is that you should weigh the evidence in any scientific debate. If a large number of papers show that PFAS are linked with negative health outcomes, then be skeptical of any paper seeking to challenge this view. Secondly, learn about epidemiology. A great starting point is the story of how John Snow was able to solve a cholera epidemic in London through epidemiological principles. Thirdly, understand that not all science is equal. You need to check if the research appears in a reputable journal, whether the author has a good reputation, and, for older research, how many other papers cited the article.
If reading the above makes you worry about PFAS and its effects on your body, you can always buy an at-home PFAS test. This will let you monitor the PFAS compounds you are being exposed to and then take steps to reduce these.
