On any other topic -- geopolitics and science in particular -- he is far, far out of his depth.
Posted on 10/11/2002 3:53:35 PM PDT by TCSparkman
True confession: I am a loyal reader of two Chronicle features, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections. While Letters occasionally unveils a fresh perspective, the corrections box sorts out those bread-and-butter details that are good to know. (Was that Slovakia or Slovenia? And did they actually send troops into war, or just mention the possibility?)
Wednesday’s Corrections though did more than pick the lint from day-old sports and political columns. There was a little libel to fix. Unfortunately, the way it was done left me wondering what the word “corrections” means to the Chronicle.
For instead of erasing the false impression and issuing an apology, the Chronicle waved its figurative hands around and carefully re-stated the innuendo--leaving the same smelly impression.
Disclaimer: I don’t know the person whose professional reputation was impugned. But I have read some of her work. Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold of the University of California, Berkeley, is a well regarded scientist who helped develop a hazard ranking method for rodent-tested carcinogens, some commonly found in the environment.
She, with Dr. Bruce Ames and others, has published major, peer-reviewed articles in the journal Science, and she maintains an extensive web-based data base that is widely used. She and Ames were among the first to ask in a systematic way: just how dangerous is this stuff we’re putting in the environment.
To my knowledge, none of their work has been substantively criticized on its merits, although like all scientific research, it must be held up in the light of new findings.
But, according to columnist Jon Carroll, Dr. Gold’s scientific credibility is a sham. Her recent appointment to a federal advisory board, occasioned him to portray her (and several other researchers) as “foxes guarding the hen house” as he accused her of making “a career countering environmentalists' claims of links between pollutants and cancer.'' Carroll’s libel wasn’t even original. He got it from the Washington Post, according to the corrections box, the same corrections box, which added that the Washington Post account “was later clarified.”
Carroll’s credentials for this condemnation (listed on his website) include “attending University of California for 1.6 years, where he majored in experimental chemistry and biology in a non-classroom setting.” Perhaps this is his clever way of saying he did drugs and sex on campus, but didn’t pursue a formal education. Who knows?
Carroll is known for rambling on about his alcoholism, living in his bathrobe, and urging others to join him in voting Green on November 5. That his view of Dr. Gold’s competence might carry any weight at all is hardly likely.
Unfortunately, the Chronicle let him stray out of his belly button and now is paying the price with a correction. Unfortunately, too, the Chronicle was not honest enough to clear the air of his lingering odor. To the contrary, the Chronicle’s new exegesis has it that “the chemical industry has favored” Dr. Gold’s work.
Cute. She doesn’t favor industry; it favors her. A grammatical switch, and presto, the libel disappears and the innuendo remains.
The correction also states: “Gold has made a career of developing risk analysis models that generally support the conclusion that the human health risks posed by many chemicals in the environment are relatively small.” WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Caution to Chronicle writers and editors: Read slowly here; this is important. Gold has analyzed and compared the results of previously published animal cancer tests. The merging of all these data, which were produced and peer-reviewed by others, has allowed her to develop a ranking of the relative dangers of known carcinogens. This ranking was not “risk assessment model” nor was it designed to support a conclusion favored by industry or anyone else. She did not put industry’s finger on the scale, as you imply.
Gold’s work did show that Nature’s own carcinogens are far more prevalent (and sometimes more potent) than their synthetic counterparts. This means that the people who develop cancer from exposure to chemical carcinogens are far more likely to have been affected by what naturally abounds in the environment and NOT by any synthetic pollutants or pesticide residues. In other words, the things we obsess about pose small risks, so small that sane people would not worry about them.
This may have caused a furor within the special interest groups whose philosophy and regular fundraising campaigns are imperiled by ho-hum facts. But the rest of the public, if it had been informed of the good news, would have heaved a collective sigh of relief and moved on.
That Carroll disapproves of Gold’s findings says everything about his worldview; nothing about hers. We do know that Gold has made her data and methods transparent and they have withstood scientific challenge (the real, objective kind).
If the Chronicle had checked on Dr. Gold’s professional reputation in government and academia, they may have gained a better perspective on her true standing. And that should have set the stage for a gracious and sincere apology, one that’s still due, in my opinion.
If you are interested in the original Jon Carroll column, and the follow-up "correction", click here:
initial libel: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/26/DD150464.DTL Sept. 26 column by Jon Carroll
then correction: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/09/MN16281.DTL Oct. 9
At least bloggers like us to get to the truth. Long live Chronwatch!
On any other topic -- geopolitics and science in particular -- he is far, far out of his depth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.