Every day, high-stakes decisions are made using incomplete or weak science. These decisions impact the lives of millions of people through misguided rules, high prices, expensive lawsuits, and lost innovation. In response to this, the Center fights for truthful science to create a just and healthy world.
As a young organization, it’s been an exciting year for the Center as we have completed our first major research initiatives on key issues at the intersection of science, justice, and the economy. Below are highlights of some of our most important achievements and milestones in 2022, as well as information about upcoming projects in 2023.
We are grateful to everyone in the scientific community who has embraced our mission and supported this important work.
Awarded Grants and Published Research
The Center is on a mission to examine the quality of evidence on issues at the intersection of science, justice, and the economy. To do this, we have awarded research grants to well-credentialed and respected independent researchers worldwide to perform systematic reviews of existing studies. This year, four reviews funded by the Center were accepted for peer-reviewed publication:
- Scientific review finds insufficient data to draw accurate conclusions about the association of PFAS with any specific disease
This critical review was published in Environmental Research and was performed by the Center of Environmental Food and Toxicological Technology at the University of Rovira i Virgili in Spain. It found that looking at the best studies to date, there is not enough known to draw accurate conclusions about the association of PFAS with any specific disease.
Read a summary of the review here.
Read the full review here. - Scientific panel finds “low confidence” of a relationship between glyphosate and cancer
This critical review was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Risk Assessment and was performed by a panel of six senior scientists assembled by SciPinion. It found low confidence that existing meta-analyses demonstrate a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Read a summary of the review here.
Read the full review here. - Systematic review finds a lack of evidence of a link between ethylene oxide and cancers
This systematic review was published in Chemico-Biological Interactions and was performed by a team of scientists at Cardno ChemRisk (now Stantec). The review, which integrated all lines of evidence and utilized several established guidelines to evaluate quality, found a lack of evidence of a clear and consistent relationship between inhaled ethylene oxide and stomach, breast, and lymphohematopoietic (LHM) cancers at human exposure levels. This paper has already been cited in a review in the journal Foods, to temper conclusions EPA and IARC have made about ethylene oxide.
Read a summary of the review here.
Read the full review here. - Systematic review finds limited evidence of a relationship between talc and pulmonary cancers
This systematic review was published in Frontiers in Public Health and was performed by a team of scientists assembled by Cardno ChemRisk (now Stantec). Integrating all lines of evidence and using a hybrid combination of accepted guidelines from several sources, it concluded there is likely no association between inhaled talc and respiratory cancers at human-relevant exposures.
Read a summary of the review here.
Read the full review here.
The process used by the Center to award proposals to these researchers was an independent review by outside subject-matter experts, providing valuable context to these important milestones for the organization. You can read more about our process here.
New Grant Opportunities
The Center also announced a new funding opportunity in 2022! We are looking for qualified researchers to conduct a systematic review of existing studies that examine the relationship between exposure to inhaled formaldehyde and leukemia, including myeloid leukemia, and other lymphohematopoietic (LHP) cancers.
For more information, see the RFP here.
Building Trust in the Scientific Community
Already, the scientific community is taking notice of the discoveries made possible by our grant funding. Three abstracts were accepted for poster presentations at the 2022 Society of Toxicology meeting in San Diego, CA, including talc and ethylene oxide systematic reviews conducted by Cardno ChemRisk, and a glyphosate review conducted by SciPinion.
All three poster sessions enjoyed a great turnout of conference attendees, including scientists, academics, and industry representatives. Most of the discussion was very positive with good questions, supportive comments, and productive suggestions.
The Center is proud to support these talented researchers as they deliver objective, unbiased findings to address some of the most contentious scientific questions facing the world today.
A Commitment to Education
The Center supports “strong science,” but what does that mean in practice? We wrote several blog posts this year educating the public on research integrity. Below are some highlights:
Determining strength of evidence: What are the standards of a systematic review?
Determining strength of evidence: Interpreting results of a systematic review
Judges are making scientific decisions. Do they have the expertise?
Not all “new” studies are good studies – how to spot the difference
How to distinguish a good scientist: Look to Svante Pääbo
New President
It was a privilege to join the team as the president and CEO of the Center for Truth in Science this year. For a little bit more information on me, we published an introductory Q&A on the blog that discusses my professional path to the Center, the importance of scientific integrity, and the steps needed to untangle the intersection of science, justice, and the economy.
I’ve enjoyed getting to know as many members of our community as possible this year. If we have not met already, send me a note!
New Board Members
The Center also welcomed two members to the Board in 2022, Nathan Schachtman, J.D. and Ted Simon, Ph.D., who both bring valued perspectives to our mission as we find new ways to untangle the mess at the intersection of science, justice, and the economy.
Nathan Schachtman has been practicing law in the area of health effects litigation for 40 years, and has tried and appealed dozens of cases in the United States, including some of the leading cases involving epidemiologic and other scientific evidence in product liability cases.
Schachtman has also lectured and published widely on medico-legal causation, expert opinion testimony, access to underlying research data, legal uses of statistical, probabilistic, and epidemiologic evidence, and disease screenings.
Dr. Ted Simon earned a doctorate in neurobiology and behavior and worked as a toxicologist in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has developed environmental risk assessments for several large hazardous waste sites, reviewed pharmacokinetic models for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, and, as a consultant to Health Canada, developed a quantitative toxicity assessment for arsenic.
Dr. Simon was an author of the paper, “How well can carcinogenicity be predicted by high throughput ‘characteristics of carcinogens’ mechanistic data?” which was published in the journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It received honorable mention for the “Best Paper of the Year” from the Risk Assessment Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology.
This paper presented a critical examination of the methodology used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for identifying cancer hazard and revealed the predictive power of IARC’s methodology was no better than random chance.
He has previously served on the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and is currently on the editorial boards of several respected journals.
Our team and our impact are growing. With each initiative, we are establishing the Center as a respected thought leader in the pursuit of objective, fact-based science.