In 1997, I found myself getting the first Europe wide directive on Particulate Matter pollution onto Europe’s law books.
I was young, progressive, and eager to get a piece of legislation adopted under the nearly elected Blair Labour government.
There I learned that if any side funds scientific research that is going to be used to inform public policy, regulatory or political decisions, the other side is going to call it out, question it, and cast dispersions on the study’s credibility.
Industry-funded science is seen in the same light as the research of Dr Ehardt Von Grupten Mundt.
Too quickly, both sides descend into a mud-slinging exercise.
It’s made worse by the frequent inability of scientists to speak to politicians and policymakers in plain-English. Scientists, who are brilliant autistic savants in the lab, should not be allowed out.
Politicians and policymakers want the science they base their proposals on to meet the highest standards. If research is going to be used to inform regulatory and legislative decisions, it deserves to be right and go through peer review from hell before being accepted. But, if competing sides spend their time bitching about the other side’s science, what is the solution?
In 1997, I came across a solution in Boston, USA. The Health Effects Institute has a simple mission. It is to identify and conduct highest priority research on the potential population exposures and health effects and provide a source of high-quality, impartial science that is needed to support decisions about how best to ensure the protection of public health and the implementation of regulatory and policy decisions.
Their groundbreaking research proved, once and for all, the deadly nature of particulate matter on human health.
Why did the government, NGOs, and industry, trust their research?
One reason is that government and industry jointly fund the work, but they have absolutely no influence on the research. Government and industry pay, but have no say.
Another is that HEI held any research to a standard that is described by those who have gone through it as “peer review from hell”. Bad science does not get through.
NGOs and academics trust it. Their research is not tainted.
The presence of legends like Archibald Cox made sure that even the most powerful men in the land could not influence anything HEI did.
We tried to introduce the method to Europe. Sadly, it failed. But, today, more than ever, I am sure that this is an excellent model to import into Europe. Too many on both sides are still prepared to fund research to disprove gravity to advance their interests.