Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2021 Aug 19;20(1):91.
doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00776-1.

Environmental epidemiology in a crossfire

Ruth A Etzel  1 , Philippe Grandjean  2   3 , David M Ozonoff  4
Affiliations
Editorial

Environmental epidemiology in a crossfire

Ruth A Etzel et al. Environ Health. .

Abstract

Two tendencies have emerged in environmental epidemiology that hamper the translation of research findings into prevention of environmental hazards. One is the increased focus on highlighting weaknesses of epidemiology research that is clearly meant to explain away the research conclusions and weaken their possible implications for interventions to control environmental hazards. Another is the voluminous amount of information sharing that involves a substantial amount of misinformation, as part of the ongoing infodemic. In this light, the appearance of the catalogue of doubt-raising strategies, indeed the worst practices of scientific inference, is good news. Collected under the auspices of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy, it serves to illustrate the range of possible (and impossible) forms of critique that may be raised on behalf of vested interests or other groups who for some reason disagree with the epidemiological conclusions. We believe that this systematic list will be useful in our field and help to identify critiques of policy options that are hidden and sometimes suppressed in weighing the epidemiological evidence.

Keywords: Conflict of interest; Doubt; Environmental epidemiology; Infodemic; Policy; Public health; Research integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have editorial responsibilities for Environmental Health.

Comment on

  • Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.
    Soskolne CL, Kramer S, Ramos-Bonilla JP, Mandrioli D, Sass J, Gochfeld M, Cranor CF, Advani S, Bero LA. Soskolne CL, et al. Environ Health. 2021 Aug 19;20(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00771-6. Environ Health. 2021. PMID: 34412643 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Michaels D. Doubt is their product: how industry's assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Michaels D. The triumph of doubt: dark money and the science of deception. New York: Oxford University Press; 2020.
    1. Baur X, Soskolne CL, Bero LA. How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests? Environ Health. 2019;18(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12940-019-0527-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ Health. 2021;20(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soskolne CL, Kramer S, Ramos-Bonilla JP, Mandrioli D, Sass J, Gochfeld M, et al. Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods. Environ Health. 2021;20. 10.1186/s12940-021-00771-6. - PMC - PubMed