Anti-Asbestos Advocates Say Some Scientific Journals Promote "Junk Science"
Some anti-asbestos advocates claim that two prominent scientific journals with close industry connections are promulgating misleading information about known toxic substances.
Anti-asbestos advocates are taking issue with the Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. These two scientific journals are commonly used by industries that want to avoid regulation that could hurt their bottom line, as well as used to defend court cases. Critics of the journals say they promote junk science, putting people at risk for toxic substance exposure.
Both Critical Reviews and Regulatory Toxicology are staffed with scientists and lawyers who aren’t just closely tied to the industry – they’re employed by it. This connection prompts suspicion by anti-asbestos advocates. The journals lose credibility because it can appear to be authored by those whose goal is to spread industry propaganda.
The journals, of course, claim that any ties to the industry in no way compromise the integrity of the journals’ content, but it will likely remain a point of contention with anti-asbestos advocates. You can read more about this story in The Center for Public Integrity.
If you would like to learn more about asbestos exposure, filing a lawsuit after a mesothelioma diagnosis, or other topics related to asbestos cancer, click on the related links below:
- Who Is At Risk for Mesothelioma?
- Asbestos & Mesothelioma FAQs
- BPB Represents Widow in Mesothelioma Case, Gets $11.5 Million Verdict