Search This Blog

Friday, July 26, 2013

I Wish I Had Access To This Article

It's from about a year ago, but I hadn't seen it until today:

Research Integrity and Conflicts of Interest: The Case of Unethical Research-Misconduct Charges Filed by Edward Calabrese


Special-interest polluters often file research-misconduct (RM) charges against scientists whose research suggests needed pollutant regulation. This article argues that U.S. RM regulations are flawed in requiring RM assessors/experts/accused, but not accusers, to reveal possible conflicts of interest (COI) that could affect RM allegations. It (1) summarizes U.S. RM regulatory history; (2) uses a case study about 2011 RM allegations, filed by chemical-industry-funded toxicologist Edward Calabrese, to illustrate problems with RM regulations; and (3) offers 4 arguments in favor of revising RM regulations so as to require RM-accuser revelation of possible COI and who funded preparation of the RM allegations.


  1. Thanks. I could break down and buy it for $37 but that seems a bit much, so I'll just do without. Though the keywords have me drooling:

    "Calabrese, hormesis, conflict of interest, research misconduct, scientific integrity"

  2. This looks like a related paper.

    I read some of her papers, and it looks like a mixed bag to me: she has some good points, but I find her argumentation often analytically weak. And her prejudices shine through. But then, she's a philosopher not a scientist ;-)

  3. Yeah, she's a mixed bag, but I think she has Calabrese figured out correctly as well as industry influence.

    I had that particular paper and another similar one on my Page "Hormesis - Ideological Toxicology" (upper right of this webpage).

  4. About 'figuring out correctly', I just saw a ref to Proctor's book 'Golden Holocaust' (tobacco), and a discussion in section 0.7 in this document. Worth a read.

  5. That link is a treasure-trove! I'll try to read it all this weekend.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Thanks, I have those via this link:

    But that link doesn't include the paper which is the topic of this post.

  8. Thx for the link, and sorry can't help you with this one!

  9. > But then, she's a philosopher not a scientist

    Correction, she appears to have a formal training in biology.