Today, with so many channels, websites, podcasts and other ways to distribute information, just about any novel finding is grist for instant worldwide publication. The scarier the information, the more attention to the outlet. Some are better than others at presenting the complete picture, but nonetheless, most of us — especially the regulatory bodies that govern us — need to get better at following the science rather than the headlines. To do that, focus on “ripe” information.
The European Union recently did this when its European Commission followed the scientific evidence, however unpopular, and proposed extending approval of the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller for 10 years. But contrary examples can be found daily, like pending U.S. regulations directed at a group of chemicals used in hundreds of products: the scary-sounding “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,” known as PFAS.
While this particular science is not certain enough, and there may be little to worry about, the regulations would impose billions of dollars in compliance costs and potentially deter innovation and products that, on balance, make Americans safer and healthier.
Generally speaking, patience and regulatory caution are elusive when social and traditional media and nonprofits sometimes appear guided by a shadowy image of a risk — a “startling” finding that pops up and spreads more quickly than the boring, complete set of facts can do. Reported claims can overlook questionable research practices, shoddy data and dubious methodologies, often blurring the line between correlation and causation.
Journalists, too, commonly take the latest study at face value, with social media and advocacy groups being even more credulous. A cascade of alarming news spreads, sometimes with a low bar, even in peer-reviewed science. Litigation quickly follows and tort judgments begin to make policies well before thorough science can catch up. Regulatory bodies, mindful of accusations of “not doing anything,” are pressured to act by the public and advocacy groups, and regulatory bodies comply.
As for the courts, GlaxoSmithKline paid out more than $6 billion for claims arising from its drug rosiglitazone, only to be vindicated by a large clinical trial showing no risk of cardiovascular harm. Bayer, responsible for Roundup’s herbicide Glyphosate, has already paid out $11 billion but more recently won its last seven cases. These kinds of preliminary judgments discourage potential innovators, and we often end up with less-safe substitutes.
It’s time for a theory of legal and regulatory science “ripeness.”
In law, cases are “ripe” when there is sufficient, valid evidence of causation of harm. Regulation and courts should wait until there is adequate clarity before making an irreversible decision that might be wrong.
That would help avoid the types of situations where, for example, courts and regulatory agencies have relied upon the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s listing of chemicals as “probable human carcinogens” based on animal studies and insufficient evidence in humans.
In fact, in IARC parlance, half of all compounds tested at high doses in animals are called “human carcinogens,” by semantic fiat. Advocacy groups take this semantic and scientific flexibility to even greater extremes. One nonprofit recently did so in a health warning about a pesticide, Chlormequat. The Environmental Protection Agency recently examined the same chemical used to improve crop yields and found “no dietary, residential or aggregate risks of concern.”
Of course, the scientific world bears its share of responsibility for risk-mongering. Some journals are all too eager to publish sensational results, such as The Lancet’s original decision to publish the now-infamous paper by Andrew Wakefield suggesting the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine causes autism. It took 12 years before retracting the article.
Careful scientists do not rush to publish weak science. All should follow the 18th-century scientist Luigi Galvani, who “had not the intense desire for publicity that causes smaller men to rush into print with their embryonic discoveries the moment they get their first distant glimpse of a new truth.” But in modern academia, publication is the currency of tenure and grantsmanship.
Science is never settled, and decisions cannot be postponed until there is 100 percent certainty. Nonetheless, there needs to be a sufficient body of evidence of adequate quality that sustains itself through sufficient challenges before consequential decisions are made in the regulatory or legal arenas.
It’s time for scientific bodies and institutions to more forcefully weigh in when science is too far behind media and public opinion to slow down legal and regulatory actions that come with consequences. Otherwise, we are not “following the science.” Far from it; we are following sensationalism.
