Dear All,

Yesterday, Dr. Albert Burgstahler and others, who had sent letters into President Bok, started receiving replies from Harvard (see below). It didn’t come from President Bok, but from Dr. Margaret Dale of the Harvard Medical School. Dale’s response does not address the central issues of Burgstahler’s concerns. No explanation is given for Harvard’s extraordinary exoneration of Chester Douglass, instead the August 15 non-explanatory conclusions are merely re-iterated.

Harvard is making this situation worse for itself. In the absence of any attempt at a clear and cogent explanation for Harvard’s extraordinary exoneration of Douglass, any reasonable person must conclude that there is NO EXPLANATION and that these unnamed Harvard employees at the Dental and Medical School are merely protecting their own. That is bad enough. What makes this worse is that President Bok doesn’t seem to care if Harvard is giving the impression that it is more interested in protecting its own that protecting its reputation; selling science rather than seeking the truth. Over 400 people begged him to look at the issue himself, instead he has simply passed it off to someone else. It was President Truman who kept a sign on his desk which said “The Buck stops here”. When it comes to serious academic issues like this such an admonition equally applies to University Presidents as it does to National Presidents.

I hope Harvard students, when the new semester starts next week - and university students everywhere - get upset about this. Needless to say if they were brought up on charges of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism or cheating, they would not get such an easy ride, as their professors appear to get.

We understand that Albert Burgstahler and EWG are preparing their own responses to President Bok, but meanwhile below is an excellent and succinct response from Lynne Campbell from Oregon. I suspect that she sums up the same sense of outrage that many of us feel about this.

Meanwhile, it is interesting that Douglass’s “promised” paper, which supposedly would put the science on the fluoridation and osteosarcoma issue to rest (first promised in 2002 to the British Fluoridation Society, and then again to the NRC during their deliberations in 2004 and 2005, and then again when Bassin’s article was published in May 2006), is now being promised for early 2007. Perhaps the peer reviewers require higher standards from Douglass than his funders at the NIH, who have poured over a million dollars into his work with nothing to show for it but one abstract in 1995. Unless, of course, what they were really paying for was for Chester Douglass to keep this relationship hidden, in which case, apart from the little glitch from Bassin, they have been handsomely rewarded.

If that seems far fetched ask yourself why on earth such a sensitive issue as a possible relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, would ever be given to a dental school researcher well known for his support for fluoridation?

Paul Connett

PS The article in C & E News (with photos) on the FAN conference can be viewed at  http://pubsacs.org/email/cen/html/090506090615.html

 ——————————————————————-

September 7, 2006

Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Chemistry

The University of Kansas

1620 Massachusetts Avenue

Lawrence, KS  66044

Dear Professor Burgstahler and Others:

President Derek Bok asked me to respond to your letter to him of August 22, 2006.  First, let me clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding by many people of the purpose of the Harvard review.  The review was conducted to determine whether Dr. Chester Douglass had committed research misconduct and not to determine whether there is an association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma.  The latter is a scientific question, which should be answered through scientific inquiry, acquisition and analysis of data, and peer reviewed publication.  Harvard as an institution appropriately takes no position on the scientific question.

As you may know, Dr. Elise Bassin’s data and analysis were published this year in a peer-reviewed journal, which is edited by a Harvard faculty member.  Dr. Douglass and his collaborators at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have not yet published the results of their analysis, but I understand they expect to do so in early 2007.  Dr. Douglass’s work, as well as Dr. Bassin’s, should and we expect will be subject to rigorous scientific peer review and discourse.

The review at Harvard focused instead on whether Dr. Douglass intentionally misrepresented or suppressed Dr. Bassin’s work.  In conducting the review, all the materials provided by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), including the “final report” cited by the EWG, were examined.  After careful review, two committees concluded that Dr. Douglass had not misrepresented or suppressed Dr. Bassin’s data.  Indeed, the Office of Research Integrity of the Public Health Service has accepted the conclusions.

The review also looked at the allegation that Dr. Douglass had a personal financial conflict of interest with the Colgate Palmolive Company.  The two committees determined that he did not have a conflict of interest under either Harvard or governmental conflict of interest policies.

In conclusion, we recognize that there is great public interest in issues involving the fluoridation of water and that the issue engenders strong opinions on all sides.  As an academic institution, we firmly believe that the process of scientific inquiry is the appropriate way to address those issues.  At the same time, Harvard stands behind its faculty review processes, which are thorough and fair and which apply to all faculty, regardless of public interest in the particular matter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Margaret L. Dale

Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity

Harvard Medical School

———————————————————————————————————

Dear Margaret Dale,

I am in receipt of your letter to Albert Burgstahler and “Others” and am disappointed that President Bok did not see fit to communicate directly with Harvard alumni.   

As one of the “others,” let me be plain.  You could not have been more non-responsive to Dr. Burgstahler’s concerns, which had nothing to do with fluoridation or actual fluoride science, and everything to do with scientific integrity and professional conduct.

You have provided no further insight into Harvard’s investigation process nor given the public any possible reason to accept the exoneration of Douglass when the evidence so clearly points toward ethical violations.  Your non-response only furthers the perception that Harvard is “protecting one of its own.” 

The public looks to esteemed institutions such as Harvard to show unwavering loyalty to truth — and transparency is a part of truth.  Taxpayers who funded Douglass’ research through NIEHS have a right to better understand Harvard’s decision.  Douglass and Bassin deserve to be removed from this cloud of suspicion, which, with a letter such as yours, will linger indefinitely.

Surely you can do better.

Sincerely,

Lynne Campbell
1651 Ash St.

Lake Oswego, OR 97034