|
|
|
|
|
Exclusive Interview A Conversation With David Heath Award-Winning Investigative Reporter Of Detailed Article Documenting Ties Between Pat Buffler And Industry
|
|
Editor’s Note 2024: A decade ago the epidemiologists worldwide were mired in a discussion of ethics in the wake of a public investigative report into the actions of the late Dean Patricia Buffler of the University of California – Berkeley. The EpiMonitor was able to exclusively interview the investigative reporter who wrote the original article that triggered the reflection within the epidemiology community. Berkeley has recently looked back on the legacy of Dean Buffler and we felt it appropriate to revisit the incident to see what we’ve learned over the last decade and what we’ve changed. A copy of the investigative report can be read HERE. Next month we will reprint more of our original coverage of this incident. Interviewer: Roger Bernier, PhD A surprising report for many epidemiologists about the University of California Berkeley’s late Pat Buffler appeared in December 2013 on the website of the Center for Public Integrity. Entitled “Public Health Researcher Also Worked for Industry, Revealing Entanglements of Science”, the detailed report presented evidence of multiple relationships Pat Buffler had with industry and of contributions she made in various settings which appeared to be conflicts of interest. Since many colleagues reading or learning about these allegations were shocked, and some raised questions about the motives and qualifications of David Heath, the reporter who conducted the investigation, we interviewed him to dig further behind the story. Below is the exclusive interview given to the editor of The Epidemiology Monitor. Epi Monitor: Can you tell us a bit about your background as a journalist and your work at the Center for Public Integrity? Heath: I’ve spent most of my career working for newspapers in Seattle, St. Louis and Louisville. For the past 21 years, I’ve done investigative reporting exclusively. While at the Seattle Times I coauthored an investigation into researchers who had financial stakes in deadly experiments at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. That series won many national awards including Harvard University’s Goldsmith Award. It was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2002. I also coauthored a series exposing medical researchers who were paid to divulge secrets about ongoing drug trials to elite Wall Street investors. In recent years, the Justice Department has started prosecuting people engaged in this practice.
In 2009, I
joined the Huffington Post Investigative Fund which later merged
into the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative
unit that collaborates with major news outlets. I worked with
PBS Frontline on a program on questionable dental practices at
corporate chains. Last year, I produced two segments for PBS
NewsHour on corporate influence over the EPA’s efforts to
evaluate hexavalent chromium. Heath: It’s a long story, but the short version is that as I was researching corporate influence on environmental science, I kept coming across Patricia Buffler’s work. A colleague of mine was having the same experience. Finally, we realized that she was on the board of directors of FMC Corp. while she was dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. It seemed worth looking into.
Epi Monitor:
Some I have spoken with say
everyone has an agenda, and they have questioned what your
agenda may have been in choosing to investigate Pat Buffler and
in reporting what you reported. They wonder if this agenda
influenced your investigation and findings. What is your
reaction to these views? I have been working on a series of stories about the chemical industry's influence on the science of toxic chemicals. Earlier in the year, I wrote about academics on an IRIS peer review panel who, unknown to the EPA, had conflicts of interest. One was hired by PG&E on chromium VI matters while actually serving on the panel reviewing chromium VI. Another had been a litigation witness for industry in seven chromium VI lawsuits. The EPA left it up to a private contractor to select and vet the panelists. After my report appeared on PBS NewsHour, the EPA changed its rules for selecting peer-review panels. Epi Monitor: The investigation seems to be very exhaustive involving many persons and documents. How long did it take you to do this work? Heath: I worked on the story for approximately six months. Patricia Buffler died in the middle of my research. Epi Monitor: You have mentioned Pat Buffler's memorial. What strong impressions did you get from her memorial service? Heath: It was clear from the memorial that many of Pat Buffler’s colleagues and students were heart broken by her death. So many people used the same words to describe her, such as: generous, warm, charming and elegant. Epi Monitor: What did you learn about her contributions to public health that seemed most impressive to you? Heath: I was impressed that she criticized the Food and Drug Administration for delays that may have cost hundreds of children their lives. It dealt with delays in putting Reye’s syndrome warning labels on aspirin bottles. Epi Monitor: Do you think that behavior reveals a courage she had to speak her honest opinion, at least in some difficult circumstances? Heath: Of course. But I think all scientific opinions should be honest. Epi Monitor: I understand from colleagues that they have no reason to believe that her research work for NIH was impacted in any way by her relationships with industry. Do you agree from what you know? Heath: I suspect that’s what scientists always say when they have a conflict of interest. Yet research shows that financial conflicts produce more favorable results for the companies involved.
Epi Monitor:
What do you consider to be your most well-documented findings
about Pat Buffler's work with industry which violated
established rules of ethical conduct or went against standards
of good professional conduct? A lot of sources were shocked to learn about Buffler’s role at FMC Corp. She served on the board for 17 years, doing research on pesticides and herbicides that could affect the $2 million worth of stock she owned in the company. Yet she never disclosed that relationship when applying for grants or publishing her research. I quote Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University expert in conflicts of interest, calling it “the worst case of conflict of interest I’ve seen in years.” Epi Monitor: You mentioned some ideas you might have about how and why the violations you reported on were carried out. What appears to be the most plausible explanation(s) for any violations she may have made? Heath: Unfortunately, I never had a chance to talk to Patricia Buffler to get her explanation. So I don’t know what she thought or what motivated her. Epi Monitor: Do you believe there are different or equally plausible explanations for your findings? Or do you believe there is one best convincing explanation? Heath: Perhaps what you are really asking is if it’s possible that the scientific opinions Buffler gave on behalf of industry were genuine and sincere. I suspect that she would say that they were. On the other hand, I interviewed scientists who viewed some of Buffler’s work as indefensible. I don’t know how many scientists would say that lead-based paint doesn’t pose a risk to children. Some of the criticisms I heard were more harsh than the article reflects. Epi Monitor: As you know, another prominent epidemiologist in France has recently been the subject of an article in Le Monde describing potential conflicts of interest in working for industry. Epidemiologists are concerned about what these episodes reveal and what to do about them. Assuming that your findings about Pat Buffler of questionable or unacceptable behavior are true, what remedies do you think might work to prevent or lessen this behavior in the future? Heath: If I were to be completely frank, I don’t think the scientific community has ever come to terms with the problem of conflicts of interest. I have always sensed an attitude that scientists believe that they cannot be corrupted by money. It’s just not true. There has been research showing that even when drug companies give doctors small freebies, it has an influence on their behavior. The prevailing theory is that conflicts can be managed, but I don’t see much evidence to back this up. I suspect that this approach to handling conflicts is itself influenced by money. Working for industry can be quite lucrative. Universities also play a critical role here. Most research schools encourage faculty to consult for industry, which can have the natural effect of downplaying or even overlooking conflicts. Certainly at a minimum there has to be disclosure. And I think it’s fair to give research by scientists with conflicts less weight than other research. Think how seriously you would take the work of a journalist who was paid by the subjects he wrote about. Epi Monitor: You said that some of your sources predicted that you would receive a lot of negative feedback about your report, but so far have not received a single one. You have received a lot of responses expressing surprise about the findings. Were the potential conflicts extremely well hidden or disguised? If not, what do you think accounts for all the surprise and shock? Heath: As I began looking into scientists who work for industry, her name kept coming up. I did an earlier story about an epidemiologist working for the state of California who was on a sort of crusade to debunk the allegations in the film Erin Brockovich. Without getting into the details, Buffler crossed paths with this scientist while working for Lockheed Martin in a toxic tort case. I read her deposition and saw that her involvement with industry was quite extensive and some of that work seemed questionable.
Her early CVs
included a long list of consulting work for industry. I couldn't
imagine that her work with FMC Corp. was a secret to her
colleagues. I always wondered why those who knew her best didn't
seem to question these relationships. I suspect it was because
she was so well liked and respected. Once I started
talking to people who knew a lot about Buffler's work for
industry, I heard lots of complaints. Heath: Yes, I’m continuing to investigate other examples. Epi Monitor: Are any of your additional reports in the works focused on Pat Buffler? Heath: Not at the moment. Epi Monitor: Thank you for your candor in responding to our questions. If readers respond, I hope you will continue to be available to comment on what our readers think. ■
|
|
Senior Epidemiologist
Defends The Late Pat Buffler And His Own Work In Private Practice |
|
Commentary by Robert Morgan, MD
“The earth is not flat,
the earth is not round, the earth is crooked.” While that may describe the
sorry state of the world, it is up to all of us to make that world less
crooked and more fair. The series of articles in the recent EpiMonitor
correctly shone a light on some of the unfairness of the Heath Report in
the Pat Buffler matter. Full disclosure: I was Pat’s friend for
almost 40 years. The Heath report hardly ranks as investigative
journalism. Rather, it is a slanted review of part of the life of a
distinguished academician. In his interview, Heath is reported to have
said, “Our mission, as with any investigative reporting, is to expose
abuses and wrongdoing as a way to curb them.” So what abuse or wrongdoing
is he reporting? Criticism in Science Heath is very critical of Buffler for taking money to critique other scientist’s work. A good scientist welcomes critical review and doesn’t worry about who funded the criticism. In science, the quality of the data and the validity of the criticisms are more important than authorship or funding. The best mechanism for truth in science is peer review. Dr. Buffler’s papers were subjected to the same peer review process as other submissions. Was there any peer review for the Heath report? Although he criticizes her funding, did he point out that his funding comes from an organization whose Board of Directors is chaired by a famous plaintiff’s lawyer? Scientists and Industry
The University of
California has effectively answered many of Heath’s allegations concerning
funding. I agree with their policies and there is no suggestion that she
violated any of the rules. Industry has a responsibility to produce safe
products and ensure the health of workers, consumers, and the community.
One of the ways they can exercise that responsibility is by grants and
contracts to the best and brightest academic scientists. The suggestion
that scientists are being bought by industry money is grossly unfair to
most persons receiving grants or contracts from industry. That suggestion
is also a favorite allegation of plaintiffs’ lawyers when faced with
peer-reviewed industry-funded science that weakens or refutes plaintiffs’
claims. Outside Consulting
Likely, most academic
epidemiologists do some outside consulting. That practice needs no
defending. Sometime the consulting is stimulated by litigation or fear of
litigation. Both plaintiffs and defendants use experts and both sides pay
well. Sometimes, the consulting activity addresses concern over product
safety, worker safety, or community health. Is it wrong for corporations
to hire the best possible expertise to address these issues? Is it wrong
for a company to place an academic with community health and safety
expertise on the Board of Directors? It will be unfortunate if Heath’s report discourages scientists from accepting industry grants or contracts out of fear of public attacks on character and credibility. Let science go forward, whatever the funding source, and continue the usual processes of peer review and further studies to confirm or question published findings. ■
|
|
Revelations About Potential Conflicts Of Interest Spur Conversation About Ethical Behavior For Epidemiologists Are Epidemiologists Truly Independent? Readers Give Their Quick Takes On Conflicts Of Interest On The Special Responsibility Of Population Scientists To the Editor: “The same principles that apply to clinicians, times 7 billion, ought to apply to population scientists. To clarify further, I assume we can all agree that minimizing conflicts of interest (COIs) for clinicians is so extremely critical for patients so they can feel safe and reassured that they receive the best possible treatment. By extension then, population scientists (whose actions/research affect not one patient at a time, like it is the case with clinicians, but they affect entire populations!) ought to be even clearer on their COIs and in fact, because of the tremendous impact their research may have, it should not be acceptable for them to have any COIs at all (reported or not).”
Eva Schernhammer,
MD, DrPH On The Influence Of Money In Epi Research To the Editor:
"Obviously keeping secrets
about influences of any sort is bad in itself. But the pervasive
underlying problem is that noted in the last paragraphs. My defining image
of academic public health was how the discussions of "research" at the
faculty meeting of a major SPH (one Prof Buffler herself helped build)
consisted of nothing but celebrating grant income and talking about how to
get more. There was literally no mention of actual research.
Carl V. Phillips Good Science Is Good Business To the Editor: “I have worked in industry for years and take my epidemiology very seriously. I have found that in industry good science is good business. It is very important to industry to assure good science is used to evaluate risk from their products and processes. If there is a problem, industry wants to know it first. Likewise, if there is no problem, this needs to be championed.”
Jim Collins On Temporality To the Editor: “The sine qua non of epidemiologic causation analysis is temporality. Why is there a conflict of interest if a scientist first develops an opinion or approach based on the science and after that an industry asks him/her to present that opinion or approach before a public forum. It is the opinion that caused the industrial association, not vice versa. We must be careful about which came first.”
Steve Lamm
|
|
|
