Credibility of scientists: Barrow and Conrad respond [4]

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2006, Pages

  Barrow, Craig S ^a   Conrad Jr , James W ^b  

^a Dow Chemical Company   (United States)

^b AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; LAW; LETTER; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLITICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIST; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644765968     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.114-a148     Document Type: Letter

References (8)

1. Barrow CS, Conrad JW Jr. 2006. Assessing the reliability and credibility of industry science and scientists. Environ Health Perspect 114:153-155; doi:10.1289/ehp.8417 [Online 6 October 2005].
2. CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). 2004. CSPI, Environmental Working Group Challenge Two Scientists on EPA Panel. Available: http://cspinet.org/integrity/press/200412091.html [accessed 28 November 2005].
3. Ethics in Government Act. 1978. Ethics in Government Act. 5A U.S.C.
4. Horton R. 1997. Conflicts of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or obsession? Lancet 349:1112-1113.
5. Lancet. 2002. Keeping scientific advice non-partisan. Lancet 360(9345):1525.
6. Office of Government Ethics. 1997. Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. 5CFR2635.402(e).
7. Pielke Jr. R. 2005. Conflicts of Interest. Available: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/ 000408conflicts_of_interes.html [accessed 28 November 2005].
8. vom Saal FS, Hughes C. 2005. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 113:926-933.