On Campus, Industry Sets Up A Perchlorate Conferance
By PETER WALDMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 29, 2005; Page A5
For a look at how science advocacy by industry works, consider a symposium held to discuss perchlorate, a military chemical that taints some drinking-water supplies and that the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to regulate.
The host was the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The aim was "a critical and objective evaluation" of research on the chemical, a university official later said. But while the university lent its imprimatur and thus credibility to the event, the symposium was paid for by defense contractors and the Pentagon and orchestrated by industry consultants, who kept evidence of their own role to a minimum.
• Ground War: Pentagon, EPA Clash Over a Military Chemical1
12/29/05
• Second Opinion: Study Tied Pollutant to Cancer; Then Consultants Got
Hold of It2
12/23/05
• Under the Microscope: From an Ingredient in Cosmetics, Toys, a Safety
Concern3
10/04/05
• Fish Line: Mercury and Tuna -- U.S. Advice Leaves Lots of Questions4
08/01/05
• Levels of Risk: Common Industrial Chemicals in Tiny Doses Raise Health
Issue5
07/25/05
Afterward, the Pentagon dispatched six conference participants to present the
event's conclusions to a National Research Council panel that was evaluating
perchlorate for the U.S. government.
Intertox Inc., a consulting firm that advises defense contractors, billed them about $75,000 for organizing the September 2003 event, an invoice shows. University documents show that Intertox chose the format and agenda and selected the experts who would appear.
One session evaluated studies of the chemical's effects on developing brains of rats. Two of the four scientists Intertox picked for this panel previously had severely criticized the studies. A third panel member, Andrea Elberger of the University of Tennessee, says that when she was recruited by the head of Intertox, Richard Pleus, he didn't mention he worked for perchlorate users. The fourth reviewer was a consultant to the defense industry, who presented a blistering attack on the rat research without EPA rebuttal.
Dr. Pleus says that speaker was inserted at the last minute, and an EPA scientist who'd been invited to balance his comments couldn't attend. Dr. Pleus also said he didn't recall what he had said when recruiting Dr. Elberger of Tennessee. And, in a written reply to questions, Dr. Pleus said that at the symposium as a whole, which had several other panels, most reviewers knew nothing about perchlorate ahead of time, and those who did added valuable expertise.
The event brought the university a total of $64,500 in fees, profits and a faculty grant, documents show. It's common for universities to accept funding from interested parties for research and conferences, but usually the university, not the interested parties, plans the events.
In this case, the university -- which disclosed the industry sponsorship in the program and in a Web site -- formed a four-member planning committee for the three-day symposium. On it were Dr. Pleus, another industry consultant and two professors at the medical center.
A university internal memo said that "Intertox preferred to be a 'silent' player in the planning process." Intertox staffers drafted most symposium correspondence, and the documents then were sent to the university for distribution on its letterhead with faculty signatures. To simplify things, Intertox obtained electronic signatures by the two university professors on the planning committee.
In a letter of understanding with the university, Intertox removed mention of
its "assistance" in arranging the event's content, speakers, format
and funding. When a university planner emailed Intertox a draft announcement
of the event and asked if it was "OK to mention Intertox," an Intertox
employee responded by deleting the reference to the firm.
Dr. Pleus called these "trivial" matters in which Intertox, which is based in Seattle, was merely editing papers for accuracy. Dr. Pleus, who did a postdoctoral program in pharmacology at the University of Nebraska a decade ago and is an adjunct professor there, denied that his consulting firm tried to be a silent organizer. He described the professors on the planning committee as "distinguished scientists [who] would have been outraged at such an arrangement."
Dr. Pleus said his "active role" in developing the symposium was "highly transparent," and "all substantive decisions were made by consensus of the planning committee." He said his consulting firm performed "clerical and administrative functions as a courtesy to university faculty and staff" and never took "any surreptitious action under the cover of the university's authority." He said the symposium exceeded the EPA's standards for objectivity in peer reviews.
The university asked one of the professors on the planning committee, William Berndt, to respond to questions. He deferred to Dr. Pleus's responses in many cases but said, "Obviously, we at UNMC were aware that Dr. Pleus had consulted with the Perchlorate Study Group," which is a group of defense contractors that, documents show, paid Intertox about $465,000 in 2002. Dr. Berndt also said, "This conference was like any other conference I've been associated with. This was an independent conference."
After it closed, the university medical center issued a news release under its letterhead that spoke of the reviewers' "questions" about the "basic assumptions" of the EPA's risk assessment of the munitions chemical. University documents show the announcement was mostly written by a Sacramento, Calif., public-relations firm that works for users of perchlorate. Dr. Pleus said he brought in the P.R. firm "because they were knowledgeable on the subject and [the university] had limited resources."
Write to Peter Waldman at peter.waldman@wsj.com6