Fedeli Ugo, Mastroangelo Giuseppe
SER-Epidemiological Department, Veneto Region, Castelfranco Veneto (TV), Italy.
Am J Ind Med. 2011 Jun;54(6):470-3. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20941.
Pressure from the vinyl chloride (VC) industry on researchers involved in industry-sponsored studies and on regulatory agencies has been documented since 1970s. This commentary describes the influence of a lawsuit pursued by workers of an Italian VC plant on the recent scientific debate on VC exposure and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Original studies carried out by consultants of the public prosecutors and by independent researchers supported the above association. VC-industry consultants published two reviews during the lawsuit, claiming that liver angiosarcoma was the only VC-related cancer. The judges concluded that the evidence of the association between HCC and VC was still not convincing. After the trial, the risk of HCC was confirmed by a re-assessment of VC carcinogenicity from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, but other subsequent industry-funded reviews criticized the new evidence. Industry-funded authors cited each other, and rarely disclosed conflicts of interest. Based on a network of collaborating researchers, industrial interests can shape the literature enhancing the background noise surrounding the scientific evidence.
自20世纪70年代以来,氯乙烯(VC)行业对参与行业资助研究的研究人员以及监管机构施加压力的情况已有记载。这篇评论描述了一家意大利VC工厂的工人提起的诉讼对近期关于VC暴露与肝细胞癌(HCC)风险的科学辩论所产生的影响。由检察官顾问和独立研究人员进行的原始研究支持了上述关联。VC行业顾问在诉讼期间发表了两篇综述,声称肝血管肉瘤是唯一与VC相关的癌症。法官得出结论,HCC与VC之间关联的证据仍不具有说服力。审判结束后,国际癌症研究机构对VC致癌性的重新评估证实了HCC的风险,但随后其他由行业资助的综述对新证据提出了批评。由行业资助的作者相互引用,并且很少披露利益冲突。基于合作研究人员网络,行业利益可以塑造文献,增加围绕科学证据的背景噪音。