|
Correspondence from Steven D. Aust, Ph.D. (Utah State University) Email 12/31/00 Subject: Re: peer review Dear Martin: Thank you very much for the letter of concern about my involvement with the peer review committee for the Philip Morris External Research Program. I wholeheartedly support your primary concern. However I disagree with your method. I too used to be of your philosophy. Due to the tragic loss of a loved one I became a very angry person and activist. For example, I worked hard for the environmental movement, unfortunately perhaps only to my detriment or at least not to the benefit of the movement. I served on the Michigan Toxic Substances Control Commission only to watch its demise. I advocated a similar public involvement for the EPA only to see Ruckelhouse's efforts in this regard to fail. I also fought within scientific organizations for responible actions towards nutriceuticals and other fads, all to little or no readily discernable avail. However, upon realization of the errors in my ways, I have decided to try another approach, by trying to be effective for many of the same goals by working within the system. Concerning the Philip Morris External Research Program, two opportunities seemed to be presented to me. One has to do with an opportunity to influence the quality of research that will be done with these funds, while the other has to do with the type of research. I feel that there is a real need for quality peer review. I am not convinced that there are too little funds for research. Considerable research that is misdirected is frequently funded. I am of the opinion that all ideas will in fact be researched no matter the poor reasoning behind it. This is evidenced by the fact that ideas that are not funded by quality funding programs will in fact still be researched, with funds from some place, such as the Philip Morris program. This is the misuse of funds, not the absence of sufficient funds for research. It sometimes seems very difficult to discourage research based upon poor reasoning. This is not just my idea. I have heard this concept expressed by several outstanding scientists, people who I respect. Secondly, many young scientist are now encouraged to promote themselves rather than their ideas. This encourages proof of person rather than proof of principle. We thus see papers published on the potential benefits of everything from red wine to licorice to chrondrointin sulfate to "Vital Products" , frequently guaranteed to "cure" whatever ails us. I know many potential candidates for a peer review committee for the Philip Morris program. I know that they would be glad to serve, more than likely to promote their and their colleages research programs that may be either of questionable quality or moral purpose. I know that by my serving on the committee I might have am influence, perhaps a chance to counter what I personally feel is not in the best interest of either the scientist's nor the public's best interests. This research program exists. The money will be spent. You cannot be assurred that this program will be used to "try to persuade governments around the world not to implement vital tobacco control legislation." No one could be more interested in promoting public health world wide than I . I am currently trying to spread a technology for the remediation of environmental pollution all around the world, from India to New Zealand to China , in, I might add, the face of incredible political and scientific difficulties. I am also trying my best to develop a rational biochemical basis to extend life expectancy. I could care less about success for myself. I have suffered the worse a man could suffer and have become a better person for it. I am now trying in my way to pass this good fortune on. I sincerely hope you can see my point of view. Steve Aust cc.: Anna White, Coordinator, Global Partnerships for Tobacco Control
Subject: Re: It's about accountability Dear Ms White: I want to respond to you again to what I feel is your misguided agenda concerning my participation as a reviewer for the Philip Morris External Research Program. This is basically in response to your latest email, but it is influenced by many of the communications I have received concerning this matter, many of which I suspect result from your initiative. I am serving as a peer reviewer, not as an applicant. I am lending my name and expeertise to the scientific community, not Philip Morris. I am very much against any use of tobacco. However, my opportunities to effectuate what I consider a positive change are limited. I can only participate where the opportunity presents itself. I also feel a moral obligation to try a positive rather than negative approach. I have reviewed grants for many programs, from all over the world, including from foreign countries. I frequently don't apply to these programs for research support. I have been selective in part because not all of these programs enjoy the same level of prestige in the scientific community. I use different criteria when considering serving as a reviewer versus as an applicant for funds. In this particular case I have chosen to serve as a reviewer but not as an applicant for funds. The scientific value of proposals submitted to different funding programs, as well as to a particular program, varies greatly. Therefore reviewers are needed for these programs. This is perhaps the major reason why I serve as a reviewer. But I am serving the scientific community, not Philip Morris. I appreciate the fact that Philip Morris chose to have a peer review committee. They have done a number of things to improve their external research funding program. I therefore feel a little more responsibility to participate in this effort. But the responsibility is to the scientific community, not Philip Morris. This Philip Morris External Research program is theirs and theirs alone, and they are up front about it. The program, including the reviews, is handled independently and anonymously. My "reward" is not monetary, it is moral. My research program has received considerable support for many years, presumably because reviewers have seen the value of our work. I feel an obligation to reciprocate. I would suggest that scientists might recognize that their proposals might be very carefully reviewed when they see my name included with the list of reviewers for this program. I am not endorsing the tobacco industry, I am endorsing a peer review system. If reviewers that are not biased towards the tobacco industry are discouraged from serving as reviewers, they just might be replaced by reviewers that might in fact be biased. I have the feeling that many of those who have been objecting to my participation in this grant review process actually understand neither the nature of my participation nor my reasons. I would appreciate it if you could properly inform them. Many of your statements are either misleading or otherwise prejudiced. For example, be sure that you state that my participation is with the review process, not "the Philip Morris External Research Program". We in the scientific community publish our findings from basic research. I would expect the same for you concerning your "basic research" (your quotations) on how researchers justify working "with the tobacco industry" (my quotation of your words in your email of 31 January 2001). Thank you for any attention you might afford this request. Steve Aust Steven D Aust |