The mission of the American Council on Science and Health has remained the same since it was formed over 25 years ago: to promote sound science and help the public distinguish genuine health threats from purely hypothetical ones.1 Unashamed to take an unpopular stance on the big issues of our times, the council regularly weighs in on heated public debates about food safety, drug regulation, and potentially toxic pollution. The main targets of its criticism, however, are generally not the chemical giants, drug companies, or the food industry. Rather these industries are the council’s funders. The council sees the real threat as coming from those who believe chemicals are inherently dangerous, those who want to see tougher drug safety standards, and those obsessed with exposing conflicts of interest within the healthcare establishment.

Although the council’s reports and publications generate media interest and public attention, it is not a lobby group. It is a not for profit organisation that, under US law, is prohibited from lobbying if it wants to keep tax exempt status. A small outfit with only a handful of staff, fewer than 12 paid writers, and a turnover under $2m (£1.3m;  1.5m) annually, the council has an extended network of hundreds of scientific advisers. Despite its modest size, the council’s voice is often heard, not least through the influential pages of the New York Post and Washington Times.

Recently, for instance, the council’s medical director had an opinion piece published in the conservative leaning Washington Times.[2] The piece viciously attacked a senate report that had just been released on the potential heart risks of a big selling diabetes drug. The report was strongly critical of the drug’s maker GlaxoSmithKline, and one of the committee’s senators has called for regulatory reforms to enhance drug safety.[3] In his opinion piece, the American Council on Science and Health’s medical director argued that concerns about the diabetes drug were part of a "trumped up" scandal. Moreover, he wrote, tougher safety standards would mean sacrificing innovation, which could even cause more deaths if life saving medicines were taken off the market unnecessarily.

Council president and founder, Elizabeth Whelan, confirmed that the drug industry was one of the organisation’s sources of funding and that a particular drug company had recently donated $5000. Overall about a third of the council’s funds come from private foundations, a third from individuals, and a third from corporations. Although the council disclosed the names of corporate donors for many years, it no longer does so. Why? Because the media reporting on her council’s perspectives would too often distort the funding disclosures and wrongly allege corporate influence, Dr Whelan told me. "It was used against us in a very unfair way," she said, adding that all positions on issues were taken autonomously, free of donor influence.

One current target of the American Council on Science and Health is what it describes as the "conflicts of interest" movement, "aimed squarely at curtailing academic-industry collaboration in biomedical research." Dr Whelan says the push for more disclosure of conflicts of interest had "become something of a witch hunt," and there was a risk that leading scientists would soon be intimidated out of working with industry. "Then the least desirable scientists are the only ones left in the pool, and that would be a real tragedy," she lamented.

At a time when we all regularly drown in the lifelessness of a public debate driven by public relations specialists, there is something refreshing about the candour and iconoclasm of Dr Whelan and her organisation. But the council’s contribution to the public debate could only be enhanced by the transparency of disclosure, whatever risks that might entail for them.

First published in the British Medical Journal on 7 April 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c1819
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1819
 
Lobby Watch is a regular column that looks at people and organisations who have an influence on public health and on how health care is delivered.

Competing interests: RM has written previously about financial ties between doctors and drug companies.

References
1. Whelan E. Where did ACSH come from? 2004. www.acsh.org/news/newsid.852/news_detail.asp.
2. Ross G. When senators play doctor. Washington Times 2009 Mar 4. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/04/when-senators-play-doctor/.
3. Moynihan R. Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science. BMJ 2010;340:c1848.[Free Full Text]
 
Relevant Articles
Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science
Ray Moynihan
BMJ 2010 340: c1848. [Extract] [Full Text]
Rosiglitazone in the UK: down but not out
Ike Iheanacho
BMJ 2010 340: c1849. [Extract] [Full Text]