Fact Check: CHEERS
Thursday April 7, 2005
Edited on 11 April The US EPA is certainly guilty of one thing regarding its "CHEERS" project: trying to be too cute. (What were they thinking when they named this?) CHEERS stands for "
Children's Environmenal Exposure Research Study" and it recently came under attack by Sen. Boxer (D-CA) in confirmation hearings for Stephen Johnson. From a
press release (emphasis added)
It seemed inconceivable to me that this could be an accurate characterization -- so I did some "fact checking." Here's background on the proposal; it is a partnership between EPA and the Duval County Health Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and an industry group.
Researchers are particularly interested in chemical exposure (levels and effects) on children because they are an under-studied group -- but the one used as the basis of many (most?) EPA risk assessments.
The study raises other interesting questions:
One: why was it postponed? The research was slated to begin summer of 2004 but is in yet another review process, due to be final this spring.
Did the Administration fear that the research would be used in Presidential political commercials in Florida, a state key to the election? Did the rosy picture presented in the fact sheet lose its bloom? Or was it simply a matter of budget?
Two, why announce industry participation a full quarter after the study was supposed to begin? In October 2004, EPA issued a press release saying that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) would be a fourth partner. The timing of the announcement raises questions about viability, research protocol and funding.
A larger question revolves around funding for research projects such as this. Businesses are damned if they do (fund them) and damned if they don't.
Yet federal government expeditures for non-military-related research continue to decline. A recent article in ACM Communication shows that federal funding rates for Computer Science projects have dropped from almost 40% to around 15% in the past 10 years.
So how should we fund the research that we use as a basis for public policy decisions? And who should we trust to ensure that research projects do not endanger vulnerable populations?
Not nearly as sexy as saying we're going to pay parents to expose their children to pesticides. But far more fundamental.
Added on 11 April: A reader asks if EPA would advise parents if they found a household where the parents were using chemicals off-label or improperly. It's a good point, and one that I had not thought of.
I don't know the answer -- but I agree with the reader that if EPA should encounter such a household ... that they would be morally obligated to advise the parents to modify their use of the chemicals. Frankly, I would also remove them from consideration as study participants.
In drug studies, if results show either high risk to participants or great results, in both cases researchers notify participants. In the first case, they stop the study; in the second, they may provide the control (placebo) group with the opportunity to take the drug.
Perhaps it's misplaced, but I have faith in human subjects review and in researchers who deal with real people... that they will do the right thing during a research study. To do otherwise seems too pessimistic a view of humanity.
This is not the same thing as having blind faith in a "corporation." I'm talking about real people conducting research with other real people.
The program, the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study, or CHEERS, would pay the parent of a baby up to $970 if they expose their child to household pesticides and other toxins over a two-year period. The parents are also given a camcorder, which they can keep, to tape the child’s activities and reactions.However, the part in bold -- the most inflammatory part of the release -- appears to be inaccurate. It does make for rabble-rousing rhetoric, though.
It seemed inconceivable to me that this could be an accurate characterization -- so I did some "fact checking." Here's background on the proposal; it is a partnership between EPA and the Duval County Health Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and an industry group.
- People who live in Duval County Florida - and who have a child under 13 months - may be eligible. The geographic area was chosen to conform with prior research and because residents here use pesticides in-house year-round.
- Parents are directed not to change their current pesticide use patterns. Families will be selected to represent 'high' and 'low' levels of use.
- Children will be monitored based on pre-existing family pesticide use patterns. Parents are not being paid to deliberately expose children to pesticides.
Researchers are particularly interested in chemical exposure (levels and effects) on children because they are an under-studied group -- but the one used as the basis of many (most?) EPA risk assessments.
The study raises other interesting questions:
One: why was it postponed? The research was slated to begin summer of 2004 but is in yet another review process, due to be final this spring.
Did the Administration fear that the research would be used in Presidential political commercials in Florida, a state key to the election? Did the rosy picture presented in the fact sheet lose its bloom? Or was it simply a matter of budget?
Two, why announce industry participation a full quarter after the study was supposed to begin? In October 2004, EPA issued a press release saying that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) would be a fourth partner. The timing of the announcement raises questions about viability, research protocol and funding.
A larger question revolves around funding for research projects such as this. Businesses are damned if they do (fund them) and damned if they don't.
Yet federal government expeditures for non-military-related research continue to decline. A recent article in ACM Communication shows that federal funding rates for Computer Science projects have dropped from almost 40% to around 15% in the past 10 years.
So how should we fund the research that we use as a basis for public policy decisions? And who should we trust to ensure that research projects do not endanger vulnerable populations?
Not nearly as sexy as saying we're going to pay parents to expose their children to pesticides. But far more fundamental.
Added on 11 April: A reader asks if EPA would advise parents if they found a household where the parents were using chemicals off-label or improperly. It's a good point, and one that I had not thought of.
I don't know the answer -- but I agree with the reader that if EPA should encounter such a household ... that they would be morally obligated to advise the parents to modify their use of the chemicals. Frankly, I would also remove them from consideration as study participants.
In drug studies, if results show either high risk to participants or great results, in both cases researchers notify participants. In the first case, they stop the study; in the second, they may provide the control (placebo) group with the opportunity to take the drug.
Perhaps it's misplaced, but I have faith in human subjects review and in researchers who deal with real people... that they will do the right thing during a research study. To do otherwise seems too pessimistic a view of humanity.
This is not the same thing as having blind faith in a "corporation." I'm talking about real people conducting research with other real people.