In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a “State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards” panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18 percent had direct conflicts of interest, meaning a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. But it says that the NAS should strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance if the NAS is to maintain the credibility it currently enjoys. And about half of the panels examined had some scientists with readily identifiable biases who were not offset by scientists with alternative points of view.ĬSPI doesn’t dispute the high quality of reports produced by the National Academies (which include the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Research Council). But according to a year-long review of 21 NAS committees conducted by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), nearly one out of every five scientists appointed to an NAS panel has direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the study. Congress created the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide independent, science-based advice to policymakers in government.
0 kommentar(er)
