Michaels David
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Washington DC, 20037, USA.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Sep;1076:149-62. doi: 10.1196/annals.1371.058.
The strategy of "manufacturing uncertainty" has been used with great success by polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products to oppose public health and environmental regulation. This strategy entails questioning the validity of scientific evidence on which the regulation is based. While this approach is most identified with the tobacco industry, it has been used by producers of asbestos, benzene, beryllium, chromium, diesel exhaust, lead, plastics, and other hazardous products to avoid environmental and occupational health regulation. It is also central to the debate on global warming. The approach is now so common that it is unusual for the science not to be challenged by an industry facing regulation. Manufacturing uncertainty has become a business in itself; numerous technical consulting firms provide a service often called "product defense" or "litigation support." As these names imply, the usual objective of these activities is not to generate knowledge to protect public health but to protect a corporation whose products are alleged to have toxic properties. Evidence in the scientific literature of the funding effect--the close correlation between the results of a study desired by a study's funder and the reported results of that study--suggests that the financial interest of a study's sponsors should be taken into account when considering the study's findings. Similarly, the interpretation of data by scientists with financial conflicts should be seen in this light. Manufacturing uncertainty is antithetical to the public health principle that decisions be made using the best evidence currently available.
“制造不确定性”策略已被污染者和危险产品制造商成功用于反对公共卫生和环境监管。该策略需要质疑监管所依据的科学证据的有效性。虽然这种方法最常与烟草行业联系在一起，但石棉、苯、铍、铬、柴油废气、铅、塑料及其他危险产品的生产商也用其来规避环境和职业健康监管。它也是全球变暖辩论的核心。现在这种方法很常见，以至于面临监管的行业不对科学提出质疑反倒罕见了。制造不确定性本身已成为一门生意；众多技术咨询公司提供一种通常被称为“产品辩护”或“诉讼支持”的服务。正如这些名称所暗示的，这些活动的通常目的不是为保护公众健康而产生知识，而是保护其产品被指具有毒性的公司。科学文献中有关于资助效应的证据——研究资助者期望得到的研究结果与该研究报告的结果之间密切相关——这表明在考虑研究结果时应考虑研究赞助者的经济利益。同样，有经济利益冲突的科学家对数据的解读也应据此看待。制造不确定性与依据现有最佳证据做出决策的公共卫生原则背道而驰。
