In the list of "Wingspread Participants" listed below, there are
possible
contacts for those who want to pursue this further as it would
apply to
fluoridation. This conference had representatives from several
countries.

Date:   Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:28:55 -0500
Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science

Comments:     Authenticated sender is 
From: Al Higgins , Organization:
Sociology
Department UAlbany
Subject:      (Fwd) Environmental health concerns: standards of
evidence
To: SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:24:06 -0500 (EST)
From:          Stephen Ronan 
Subject:       Environmental health concerns: standards of
evidence
To:            Discussion of Fraud in Science

Reply-to:      Stephen Ronan 

Hours after John Bailar alluded to purported deficiencies in the
evidentiary standards underlying some environmental scientists'
health
concerns, I happened to receive from the scishops email list the
message
that appears below my signature. I shared Dr. Bailar's message
with Carolyn
Raffensberger, who had sent the message to scishops, wondering
whether I
could pass her message on to this list. She granted permission
for me to do
so and stated, in part (with permission for me to quote):

"Bailar emphasizes causality and certainty although those aren't
necessarily the only approaches one can take to environmental and
public
health research. I've written a couple of papers on the
philosophy of
science because these are such key questions - you can't take
cancer
clusters or global warming into a laboratory and sort this out
with a good
experiment.

"Dr. David Ozonoff made a telling comment in a paper.  He said
that
something may not be of statistical significance but it still
could be of
public health significance.  The New York breast cancer
"epidemic" is an
example.

"This gives rise to the question of what the evidence is going to
be used
for. We need high standards for evidence in advancing science. 
Scientific
journals and peer review must uphold the most stringent of
standards. Here
I agree with Dr. Bailer.  However, if evidence, particularly in
the arenas
of public health and the environment, is used in policy then we
may need
different standards.  We may need to take actions before we have
proved
that some human activities are causing serious or irreversible
harm.

"We treat evidence for drug safety differently than we do for
pesticide
safety.  As a society we have decided that we would rather be
cautious when
engesting drugs than discover negative consequences later.  This
isn't bad
science, its just a different level of certainty which triggers
caution or
action.

"Finally, we do not have a good system for public interest
research which
investigates the potential for harm from technologies or
chemicals.  Most
of the research is done by the proponent of these materials
rather than by
independent scientists. Pesticides are a case in point.  All of
the
research submitted to EPA is done by the chemical company. There
is some
risk assessment data, but it is done from a toxicological point
of view
(and only really looks at cancer) rather than an evolutionary
biological
point of view. No research or even peer reviews are provided by
truly
independent scientists.

"Feel free to post the Wingspread statement...."

Here, below, is that statement - Stephen Ronan

Subject: Precautionary Principle (fwd) 
From: Carolyn Raffensperger <75114.1164@compuserve.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Last weekend at an historic gathering at Wingspread, headquarters
of the
Johnson Foundation, scientists, philosophers, lawyers and
environmental
activists, reached agreement on the necessity of the
Precautionary
Principle in public health and environmental decision-making. 
The key
element of the principle is that it incites us to take
anticipatory action
in the absence of scientific certainty.

At the conclusion of the three-day conference, the diverse group
issued a
statement calling for government, corporations, communities and
scientists
to implement the "precautionary principle" in making decisions.

According to their statement, "When an activity raises threats of
harm to
the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be
taken
even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established
scientifically."

The 32 participants included treaty negotiators, activists,
scholars and
scientists from the United States, Canada and Europe. The
conference was
called to define and discuss implementing the precautionary
principle,
which has been used as the basis for a growing number of
international
agreements.

The idea of precaution underpins some U.S. policy, such as the
requirement
for environmental impact statements before major projects are
launched
using federal funds. But most existing laws and regulations focus
on
cleaning up and controlling damage rather than preventing it. The
group
concluded that these policies do not sufficiently protect people
and the
natural world.

Participants noted that current policies such as risk assessment
and
cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to new
products and
technologies, which may later prove harmful.  And when damage
occurs,
victims and their advocates have the difficult task of proving
that a
product or activity was responsible.

The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting
that
those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness
and be
held responsible if damage occurs.

The issues of scientific uncertainty, economics, environmental
and public
health protection which are embedded in the principle make this
extremely
complex.  We invite your thought and conversation on these
topics.
Enclosed is a copy of the Wingspread Consensus Statement on the
Precautionary Principle.

The conference was convened by the Science and Environmental
Health
Network, an organization that links science with the public
interest, and
by the Johnson Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the
C.S. Fund and
the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network
-------------------

Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle

The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of
resources, and
physical alterations of the environment have had substantial
unintended
consequences affecting human health and the environment.  Some of
these
concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer,
birth
defects and species extinctions; along with global climate
change,
stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with
toxic
substances and nuclear materials.

We believe existing environmental regulations and other
decisions,
particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to
protect
adequately human health and the environment - the larger system
of which
humans are but a part.

We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and
the
worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that
new
principles for conducting human activities are necessary.

While we realize that human activities may involve hazards,
people must
proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history.
Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities,
scientists
and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all
human
endeavors.

Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary
Principle:  When
an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and
effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the
public,
should bear the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open,
informed
and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.  It
must also
involve an examination of the full range of alternatives,
including no
action. 


Wingspread Participants:
 (Affiliations are noted for identification purposes only.)

Dr. Nicholas Ashford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
;Katherine
Barrett, Univ. of British Columbia; Anita Bernstein, Chicago-Kent
College
of Law; Dr. Robert Costanza, University of Maryland; Pat Costner,
Greenpeace; Dr. Carl Cranor, Univ. of California, Riverside; Dr.
Peter
deFur, Virginia Commonwealth Univ; Gordon Durnil, attorney; Dr.
Kenneth
Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Univ. of Mass., Lowell;
Dr. Andrew
Jordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global
Environment,
Univ. Of East Anglia, United Kingdom; Andrew King, United
Steelworkers of
America, Canadian Office, Toronto, Canada; Dr. Frederick
Kirschenmann,
farmer; Stephen Lester, Center for Health, Environment and
Justice Sue
Maret, Union Institute; Dr. Michael M'Gonigle, University of
Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada; Dr. Peter Montague, Environmental
Research
Foundation; Dr. John Peterson Myers, W. Alton Jones Foundation;
Dr. Mary
O'Brien, environmental consultant; 
Dr. David Ozonoff, Boston University; Carolyn Raffensperger,
Science and
Environmental Health Network; Dr. Philip Regal, University of
Minnesota;
Hon. Pamela Resor, Massachusetts House of Representatives;
Florence
Robinson, Louisiana Environmental Network; Dr. Ted Schettler,
Physicians
for Social Responsibility; Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition; 
Dr. Klaus-Richard Sperling, Alfred-Wegener- Institut, Hamburg,
Germany; Dr.
Sandra Steingraber, author; Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health
Coalition; Joel Tickner, University of Mass., Lowell; Dr. Konrad
von
Moltke, Dartmouth College; Dr. Bo Wahlstrom, KEMI (National
Chemical
Inspectorate), Sweden; Jackie Warledo, Indigenous Environmental
Network