Schemes, Sponsored Science, and More

In Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway's book, Merchants of Doubt, industries like tobacco and DDT kept contreversies around scientific consensuses alive in order to impede restrictions and other action. This office report from the Lead Industries in April 4th, 1960 shows the same strategies being applied.

Under Health and Safety, the document adresses the "Milwaukee 'Lead Poisoning' Case," carefully putting quotation marks around "Lead Poisoning." The case refers to a tenant who claimed $200,000 of damages for injury due to contaminated water from lead pipes.

The "doubtful validity" of the case demanded an "all out" effort for Lead Industries Association, and so they met with lawyers and scientists to ensure that the case would be in their favor:

"A conference and correspondence with an attorney in Chicago, as well as arrangements for testimony by medical and engineering experts, are believed to have assured us, to the maximum extent possible, of a satisfactory outcome."

This unpleasant maneuvering is just the tip of the iceberg. In the same quarterly report, Lead Industries Association exercise great efforts to spread doubt around scientific studies to try and curb environmental policies.

The first strategy involved an effort to liberalize the limits on lead compunds. The company admits that these efforts have not been particularly fruitful because of a lack of scientific evidence. To refctify this, their goal is to sponsor Harvard School of Public Health to conduct a lead toxicity study with the eventual aim of using the results to lower the limits on lead. This act shows the dangerous bias that can come with industry sponsored research.

The second deals with the California Air Pollution Proposals:

"A recent declaration that, 'except for carbon monoxide, lead may be closer to toxic levels in the atmosphere than any other substance...' has come to us as representing 'the latest official California thiiulng on lead.' The possible effects of such 'official thinking' are all too obvious, and every effort will be made to bring about its modification."

Lead Industries Association repeatedly and blatantly states its intentions to cloud scientific consensus, and even fund scietific research to affect policy. Doubt, in terms of winning legal cases, changing government standards, and opposing change, is all they needed.