It should be patently obvious that the quickest and cleanest method to resolve difficult scientific questions lies in the arena of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Those with axes to grind can hone their edges in commentaries and letters to the editor, or, if motivated, can conduct full swordplay in articles. No other avenue for the pursuit of truth can match the careful, ruthless scrutiny of expert scientific colleagues. Environmental Health Perspectives has used this time-tested approach to publish numerous articles on subjects that are often considered too controversial for other scientific journals. Examples that have appeared in EHP include debates on risk assessment for arsenic, endocrine disruption by xenoestrogens, pesticide toxicity in farm workers, water quality and environmental contaminants, tobacco smoke toxicity, EMF and cancer risk, radon and cancer risk, multiple chemical sensitivity, health effects of respirable particulate (PM10) air pollution, and environmental effects of global warming*.
This young journal has already experienced the thrust and slash of nonscientifically based arguments that fortunately have been parried by sound scientific data. Pressure to publish without qualified review can come from unexpected quarters--in your own organization from above and below and occasionally from the blind side outside your organization. A series of current imbroglios (1) where attempts by nonscientists are being made to obfuscate proper scientific debate are ludicrous; one of these topics, the potential relationship between porphyrias and multiple chemical sensitivity, will be properly discussed by scientific experts in the 1997 review issue of EHP Supplements. The debate will continue in a subsequent monthly issue of EHP in the category Friendly Fire (2), where arguments pro and con on porphyrias and multiple chemical sensitivity, with accompanying rebuttals, will be presented by two expert scientists. Indeed, for almost all of the above topics the journal has sought the expert opinion of various scientific protagonists, each of which are reminded of their intentions to submit papers for this category.
Careers have been sidetracked by accusations of fraud and misconduct (review the often cited Imanishi-Kari/Baltimore molecular biology case on the internet at URL [http://www.os.dhhs.gov:80/progorg/dab/dab1582.txt]) that years later remain unproven. EHP (3-5) and other journals now devote publishing space to articles on training and direction for expert scientific witnesses, as well as to letters regarding litigation. Recent issues (in 1996) of Nature and Science have been largely devoted to the topics of scientific integrity and bioethics, both of which are buttressed by the peer-review process.
The editors of EHP will continue to publish articles on controversial subjects, like those found in the present issue, where a debate on potential environmental risks from the release of radioactive contamination in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident continues. An article by Wing et al. (6) reevaluates original data and is followed by a rebuttal letter to the editor from Hatch et al., who authored articles that first reported this data in 1990 and 1991 (7,8).
Fortunately the editors of EHP are not required to be referees in the multiple disciplines of risk assessment, radiation health, epidemiology, and cancer employed in the Wing and Hatch papers, nor in a multitude of other subjects in the journal that are in the broad arena of environmental health. The expert reviewers carry this burden. The scientifically informed readers can then evaluate the data and draw their own conclusions, comfortable in the fact that all articles are peer-reviewed and therefore represent the best scientific information extant.
Therein lies the beauty of the whole process of the scientific method; investigations are conducted, reports are forwarded for scrutiny by scientific experts around the world, and the peer-review process flows toward a truth that sooner or later emerges by open scrutiny. It is immutable that the current of scientific information passes over rocks and boulders, under logs, gets into backwashes, or even is dammed, but like water is subject to gravity, the truth will out. There is no room in this river for those who attempt to thwart scientific progress by innuendo, rumor, secondhand information, and finally threats or even outright litigation, all couched in the desire to win a judgment outside of the scientific method.
Michael P. Dieter
Science Editor
* Citations in EHP by subject, volume, page, and year: arsenic [102:354 (1994); 103:13, 15, 684 (1995); 104:620, 1012, 1014, 1200 (1996)], endocrine disruption by xenoestrogens [101:372, 378 (1993); 102:256, 290, 380, 568, 572, 676, 680, 780 (1994);103:12, 346, 582, 608, 708, 784, 808, 844, 888, 1136 (1995);104:132, 298, 544, 1084, 1090, 1096, 1296, 1318 (1996); 105:70 (1997)], pesticide toxicity in farm workers [102:580, 1088 (1994); 103:644, 690, 1126 (1995); 104:362, 394, 584, 728 (1996); 105:98 (1997)], water quality and environmental contaminants [102:510, 556(1994); 103:352, 538, 592(1995); 104:48, 516, 1056 (1996); 105(2) in press], tobacco smoke toxicity [102:870 (1994); 103:156 (1995); 104:132, 1108 (1996); 105(2) in press], EMF and cancer risk [101:76, 626; 104:908, 1188, 1212 (1993); 105:94 (1997)], radon and cancer risk [102:64; 103:1042, 1144 (1994)], multiple chemical sensitivity [Environ Health Perspect, supplement 2, in press], health effects of respirable particulate (PM10) air pollution [103:472, 490; 104:290, 414, 492, 500, 506, 838 (1994)], and environmental effects of global warming [103:458 (1994); 104:414, 724 (1995); 105:84 (1997)].
References
1. Daniell WE. Science, integrity, and investigators' rights: current challenges. Reg Toxicol 24:S152-S162 (1996).
2. Dieter M. Friendly fire [editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 104:682 (1996).
3. Edelman P, Sparks P, Starr T. Litigation-related research [correspondence]. Envir Health Perspect 102:512-513 (1994).
4. Eaton D, Kalman D. Scientists in the courtroom: basic pointers for the expert scientific witness. Envir Health Perspect 102:668-672 (1994).
5. Omenn G. Enhancing the role of the scientific expert witness. Envir Health Perspect 102:674-675 (1994).
6. Wing S, Richardson D, Armstrong D, Crawford-Brown D. A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions. Envir Health Perspect 105:52-57 (1997).
7. Hatch MC, Beyea J, Nieves JW, Susser M. Cancer near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: radiation emissions. Am J Epidemiol 132:397-412 (1990).
8. Hatch MC, Wallenstein S, Beyea J, Nieves JW, Susser M. Cancer rates after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and proximity of residence to the plant. Am J Public Health 81:719-724 (1991).
Last Update: Febuary 25, 1997