Senate Bill 2695 was
christened the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, an innocuous title that belies its
impact on an entire industry and the scientific community it supports. It might as well have
been called, "The Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006."
S. 2695 would have compelled not-for-profit and commercial journals to surrender to the federal government,
within six months of publication, any and all peer reviewed articles they publish when the underlying
research in those articles is funded with federal tax money.
Click
here to read a the text of the bill.
Supporters of this legislation invoked
the mantra of 'Open Access' and the right of American taxpayers to have free access to research
funded with their tax dollars.
Unfortunately, these supporters did not want the research
alone. They wanted the peer reviewed articles about that research; articles that are
reviewed, produced, published and distributed at great expense to journal publishers.
Government expropriation of intellectual property without compensation would threaten the financial viability of thousands of scholarly journals - journals that conduct the very peer review that is so important to keeping science scientific.
Forcing journals to give up their work to the government within six months of publication would drastically reducing their financial value. As critical revenues streams dry up, journals will face extinction and the peer review provided by them disappears.
Who then shall conduct the peer review?
This was among the most vexing issues underlying Senate Bill 2695 and any similar legislation that may come to light. The erosion of the peer review process paves the way for quackery and 'junk science' to enter the realm of genuine knowledge, creating risk and confusion among consumers and the media.
It also threatens to impede future scientific and medical research by creating a bulk of information which is questionable, if not worthless, yet still in need of vetting. When researchers waste time and resources sifting through information that is valid and that which is not, it slows the advance of discovery and places their findings at risk.
The peer reviewers filter out inaccurate information to ensure that the public receives only accurate and quality scientific information. Without peer review, it would be difficult to differentiate legitimate science from junk science.
Examples of False Alarms and Scare Campaigns
Alar - 1973
In 1973, research indicated that Alar, a chemical sprayed on apple trees to encourage entire crops to ripen at the same time, suggested that Alar had carcinogenic properties. After learning of the results and conducted additional research the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided to begin to phase out use of Alar. In 1985, during the planning of the phase out, the EPA received additional research that suggested that Alar did not have carcinogenic properties.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, was disappointed with the EPA's actions and wanted Alar pulled from the market and banned in the U.S. in 1989 NRDC produced its own study playing up the dangers of Alar, especially the dangers to children as a result of drinking apple juice and eating baby food made with apples. NRDC marketed its research results to the media and the story was widely reported on several evening news casts and many news magazine television shows, including a story on a 1989 episode of 60 Minutes. Following the 60 Minutes story, the public raged and demanded that Alar be pulled from the market. Due to the negative publicity, the company responded, removing Alar from the market and causing the apple industry to lose over $100 million.
- Years later, multiple peer reviewed studies were conducted that showed that Alar was not a carcinogen.
Mobile Phone Emissions - 1998
In 1998, a self-employed researcher, Roger Coghill, argued that mobile phones caused headaches and memory loss to longtime users. Coghill published his claims on his own and released the results to the media rather than first submitting them for peer review. The media widely reported his claims and fueled public hysteria about mobile phone safety.
- Peer reviewed research conducted after Coghill made his claims did not corroborate his findings.
Acrylamide - 2002
In 2002, Swedish researchers warned about the potential dangers of acrylamide, a chemical compound found in some foods. The researchers reported that some people who ingested acrylamide from heated fatty foods were at risk for cancer. The results of the research were widely reported and escalated public concerns about acrylamide.
- Later peer reviewed studies found no relationship between ingesting acrylamide and cancer risk.
back to top
|
