Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31684947›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2019

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

Xaver Baur, Colin L Soskolne, Lisa A Bero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What is next for occupational cancer epidemiology?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2022
    Article
  6. Reply to "raised concern".Industrial health · 2022
    Article
  7. Environmental epidemiology in a crossfire.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021
    Article
  8. Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xaver BaurUniversity of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; European Society for Environmental and Occupational Medicine, P.O. Box 370514, D-14135, Berlin, Germany. baur@eomsociety.org.ORCID 0000-0003-1880-1220
Colin L SoskolneUniversity of Alberta, School of Public Health, 3-300 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Lisa A BeroMedicines Use and Health Outcomes, The University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre, D17, The Hub, 6th floor, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health.

methodsWe selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest.

resultsScientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

conclusionsWell-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestEnvironmental HealthOccupational HealthResearch DesignGovernment RegulationIndustryConflict-of-interestCorporate influenceEthicsOccupational diseasesOccupational healthPolicyPublic healthPublic health regulationsResearch integrity

Identifiers

PMID31684947
PMCPMC6829996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.