Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Thursday, December 16, 1993 Page:
Self-interest, secretiveness hurt scientists’ credibility
The term “whistleblower” is a badge of respect in America. It calls to
mind a picture of an impartial referee, blowing the whistle upon seeing a foul
—
even at the risk of drawing fans’ boosBut suppose the ref is getting paid
by the smiling team? In other words, suppose he or she profits from every
high-pitched trill?
Kind of changes the dynamics of the thing, doesn’t it?
Enter Dr. David Rigle and environmental consultant William Sawyer, paid
whistleblowers for one side in the West Side Landfill dispute.
Rigle and Sawyer may be fine scientists. Their work may be impeccable, for
all we know. But until they clear two high hurdles, the public should treat
their reports very skeptically.
And so far, the pair seem far more interested in referreeing than hurdling.
The first hurdle is the obvious taint that self-interest gives to their
work. Of course the scientists found high concentrations of an industrial
pollutant at the landfill (as The Times Leader reported Wednesday), a skeptic
could argue. They’re consultants for the suing side. Their paychecks come from
the same lawyer who’ll win big bucks if he can persuade a jury that the
landfill is a health hazard.
What did anyone expect: that the scientists would study the landfill,
decide it’s just an eyesore, then collect their checks and go home?
Environmental consultants probably wouldn’t last long in their field if they
routinely studied the environment and declared, “Not to worry.”
What we have here is a conflict of interest. Now, that’s not a reason to
dismiss Rigle’s and Sawyer’s work; every human being must watch out for their
own interests, even “neutral” federal or university scientists.
But it’s plenty of reason to treat scientists’ work skeptically until other
experts pass judgement on it.
Which brings us to Hurdle No. 2.
Rigle and Sawyer won’t let the public (let alone the experts) even see
their work, according to the story. Litigation, you know. Too hot. Names
names.
Poppycock.
By hoarding their study, the scientists lose whatever credibility their
academic degrees and backgrounds may have given them. Science isn’t calling
press conferences. Science isn’t making scary, unsubstantiated claims. Science
is forming hypotheses, gathering data, and analyzing results — then offering
it up for the inspection of one’s peers.
That’s exactly what our government agencies have done in this case. The
state Department of Environmental Resources and the federal Environmental
Protrection Agency and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry all
studied the site. All failed to find a link between the landfill and human
health. All their reports are open for all to see.
Say what you will about government, that’s a far more responsible approach
than the one taken by our two whistleblowers. At their news conference Monday,
Rigle and Sawyer held up a mysterious document and declared that it held some
kind of frightening truth. Then they refused to let anyone look at it.
We last saw that behavior displayed by a certain Sen. Joe McCarthy, and we
didn’t much like it then, either.