The case of Deborah Rice: who is the Environmental Protection Agency protecting?

• Published in: PLoS biology Vol. 6; no. 5; p. e129
• Main Author: Needleman, Herbert L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 01.05.2008; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Animals; Chemical Industry; Children & youth; Conflict of Interest; Deborah Rice; Halogenated Diphenyl Ethers; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Lead content; Lead poisoning; Oryza sativa; Phenyl Ethers - toxicity; Polybrominated Biphenyls - toxicity; Public health; Science - ethics; Science Policy; Studies; United States; United States Environmental Protection Agency - ethics; United States Environmental Protection Agency - organization & administration; United States; Animals; History, 21st Century; United States; History, 20th Century; Humans; Science; Polybrominated Biphenyls; Chemical Industry; Conflict of Interest; Halogenated Diphenyl Ethers; United States Environmental Protection Agency; Phenyl Ethers
• ISSN: 1545-7885; 1544-9173; 1545-7885
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060129

Concerned that blood lead levels in an older child would not reflect early exposures, Needleman developed a method to evaluate discarded baby teeth (both teeth and bone accumulate lead) for a more accurate history of past lead exposure. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a chemical industry trade group, did not elect to contest the statements of the report; it chose instead to accuse Rice of bias against the use of deca and to pressure the EPA to dismiss her from the panel.\n Finally, science is regulated by organized skepticism: scientists do not accept the claims of a hypothesis unless both its methods and evidence have been rigorously vetted.