Chemical & Engineering News Digital Edition - Institute of Materia ...

GOVERNMENT & POLICY
“Peer reviewers should be free to say whatever they think, and
to have retroactive retaliation sends the message that if you say
something unpopular with EPA, your views may get dropped.”
ethers (PBDEs). The review of this group
of flame retardants began in 2002. The European
Union and several U.S. states have
banned penta-BDE and octa-BDE. The
main BDE found in commerce in the U.S. is
deca-BDE, which is incorporated into plastics
in the housings of television sets and
other electric and electronic equipment, as
well as upholstery for furniture and other
items.
The peer review panel examined EPA’s
draft assessment of BDEs, which includes
agency expert judgments on how much
exposure to each BDE is
safe. These judgments
can have far-ranging
regulatory effects.
EPA places its peerreviewed
judgments on
safe doses of chemicals
and the scientific justification
behind them
in a database called the
Br
Br
Br
Br Br
Integrated Risk Information System,
which is available on the Web. EPA, other
federal agencies, state environmental
departments, and even regulators in foreign
countries rely on the database. For
instance, they often depend on the database’s
safe daily dose numbers to decide
how much cleanup a polluter must do at a
contaminated site.
Rice is a world-class toxicologist, according
to several toxicologists interviewed
by C&EN, some of whom are associated
with EPA and did not wish to comment
publicly. She was a toxicologist with
Health Canada and the U.S. EPA’s National
Center for Environmental Assessment,
which is conducting the PBDE review.
Rice declined to comment to C&EN, as
did EPA officials.
Rice was selected for the peer review
panel in 2006 and was one of five reviewers.
The panel met in February 2007 and
issued its assessment in mid-March, when
EPA posted the report on its website.
On May 3, 2007, ACC wrote to George
M. Gray, EPA assistant administrator for
R&D, complaining about “the appearance
that [the] peer review panel’s leadership
might lack the impartiality and objectivity
necessary to conduct a fair and impartial
O
Deca-BDE
review of the data.” Rice, the letter says,
had testified before the Maine State Legislature
on behalf of a state agency, the
Center for Disease Control & Prevention,
where she works. There, she advocated a
phaseout of deca-BDE.
Rice simply conveyed the policy position
of her employer to state lawmakers,
says Sonya Lunder, senior analyst with the
Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit
advocacy and research organization.
In a Jan. 8, 2008, letter to ACC, Gray
announced that the agency had removed
all of Rice’s comments
Br Br
Br
Br
Br
from the final peer review
report. The agency had
redacted her comments
from the report and reposted
it to the website.
In his Jan. 8 letter,
Gray said his letter was
a follow-up to a June 15,
2007, meeting with ACC
to discuss Rice’s involvement. Gray wrote
in his letter that EPA made the changes
because “one of the panel members had a
potential conflict of interest.”
At ACC’s urging, Gray said he had also
reviewed initial and final comments of
other panel reviewers to determine if the
chairwoman had influenced their views.
His review found “minor additions” from
reviewers but provided no evidence that
Rice had “significantly influenced the other
panelists.”
Rice “has no conflict of interest that
I’m aware of,” says Merrill Goozner, director
of the Integrity in Science project at
the watchdog group Center for Science
in the Public Interest. Under federal laws
and policies for advisory panels, conflicts
of interest have to do with advisers’ potential
financial gain or loss from their
recommendations.
Goozner’s group and environmental
organizations regularly write letters to EPA
contending that external peer reviewers
have financial conflicts of interest. “ACC
has every right to write a letter to EPA,
just like we do,” he tells C&EN. It is the
agency’s job, Goozner says, to investigate
the situation and determine if a reviewer
indeed has a conflict.
WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG 36 APRIL 14, 2008
EPA, however, “made the wrong decision”
in Rice’s case, Goozner says.
“Apparently, EPA didn’t want to hear
from this person because industry disagreed
with her conclusions,” says David
Michaels, a professor of environmental and
occupational health at George Washington
University.
Michaels, former Department of Energy
assistant secretary for environment, safety,
and health, says the removal of Rice from
the panel is consistent with other actions
the Bush Administration has taken to stack
advisory groups with scientists favorable to
its views and to silence opponents.
LUNDER AND other scientists interviewed
by C&EN warn of the chilling effect Gray’s
actions may have on other scientists asked
to take part in peer reviews. They note that
Rice had already been vetted and selected
by EPA and the contractor that put together
the panel.
“Peer reviewers should be free to say
whatever they think,” Lunder says, “and to
have retroactive retaliation by removing
your name sends a message that if you say
something unpopular or out of line with
EPA, your views may get dropped. It challenges
the whole principle of review by an
unbiased panel without fear of retribution.”
In a statement released earlier this
month, ACC said its “strong support for
science” and “an independent peer review
process” led it to raise concerns with EPA
about Rice’s membership on the PBDE
panel. “We believe EPA acted appropriately
and consistently with the rules governing
membership in scientific review panels,”
the industry group said.
“ACC will work with the Energy & Commerce
Committee to provide it with the
requested materials pertaining to this
matter,” the statement said.
The final toxicological human health
assessment of PBDE is expected this
month. It is now being examined by the
White House’s Office of Management
& Budget, according to EPA officials. An
official familiar with the draft said Rice’s
toxicological studies are cited in the assessment
although her views on the draft
had been struck. ■