Dear All,

In today’s issue of the Harvard Crimson (see below) a response is given by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine to the EWG question as to whether the review of the ethical charges against Professor Chester Douglass might have been influenced by the huge donation he gave to the new dental building there.

While denying this, the response by John Lacey gives absolutely no explanation for Harvard’s extraordinary exoneration of Douglass.

However,  some of us are now wondering whether the word “intentionally” in the phrase

did actually exonerate Douglass at all. Maybe the word “intentionally” is a “legalese” way of saying that he did do it but Harvard isn’t going to do anything about it. In other words, he did “omit, misrepresent, or suppress research findings of a graduate student” but he didn’t do it “intentionally” - therefore he is forgiven his tresspasses!

It is difficult to understand how anyone - let alone a professor at Harvard - could keep doing something “unintentionally” for three years (2002 - 2004). Especially when the person is well aware of the signficance of what is being misrepresented. And even moreso when the issue being misrepresented has a direct impact on (i.e. totally undermines) a policy (fluoridation) that the person has promoted for years and for which those who have supported him financially (Colgate-Palmolive Co.) have serious economic liabilities.

For John Lacey to claim that “The committees came to the conclusion after a year of thoughtful and detailed work and were influenced only by the facts of the review,” is a blatant affront to the public’s intellience when you know that these panels didn’t even ask EWG to present their evidence.

For Lacey to add that “the review had been conducted with appropriate transparency” is to add insult to injury. How can he call this process transparent when:

a) Harvard has not told us who was on the panels;

b) harvard neveer once even communciatd with EWG on this;

b) Harvard will not release the report of their investigation, and

c) Harvard has not offered one word of explanation on how they reached their decision.

The latter despite the fact that about 20 Harvard graduates have written to President Bok; that approximately 500 people have writen to him from around the country (from at least 45 states) from Canada (from four provinces) and from around the world (at least 13 other countries) .

Not one single word of explanation!

That is as transparent as a brick wall. If this is typical of the way language is abused by Harvard faculty, heavan help us all.

As far as the last paragraph is concerned: “The complete misconduct review record was sent to the Office for Research Integrity, the federal office with oversight in these matters,” Lacey said. “[They] determined independently that no further investigation was warranted.”

That might be impressive if it wasn’t for the fact that the US government health authorities have promoted fluoridation or over 50 years and they are not about to admit they were wrong to do so. Far fetched? Why on earth did the NIH choose Douglass to do this work in the first place? Why go to a dental school to do research on such a sensitive issue? Douglass’ function was to keep the “cork in the bottle” and he did that for about 10 years until Bassin re-examined his data and found what she found in 2001, and he still kept the “cork in the bottle” for another 4 years until Michael Connett “discovered” Bassin’s thesis in the rare books section in one of Harvard’s libraries. Now Harvard is keeping the “cork in the bottle” with their “whitewash” of Douglass’s behavior.

But can the “Office for Research Integrity”continue to keep the “cork in the bottle?”

This is where you, dear patient reader come in. This was a taxpayers’ funded study.  The tax payers have a right to see this “Harvard review of Douglass” and if not the Harvard review itself, at least the “independent” assessment of it by the ORI, of which Lacey speaks, but we are probably going to need the US Congress to get it out of them.

So please write to your US Senator or US Representative and ask him or her to get a copy of this report for you from the “Office for Research Integrity”. This is the kind of service they perform every day for their constitutents. Also, being election time they are very conscious of their constituents’ feelings right now. If you want to get things moving faster you could phone them. The number for the Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. The operator will quickly put you through to your US Senator’s or  US Representative’s office. You will first get the receptionist, who after hearing what your concerns are (describe it as public health or government integrity concern) will put you through to the aide who covers this type of issue.

Please let us know what response(s) you get. Thanks again for everything you do - and of course your patience. Out of town for a few days - back on Saturday Sept 23 when I hope to send out the next FAN bulletin, before I am off again. If there are dramatic developments Michael Connett will send out bulletins while I am away.

Paul Connett

——————————————————————–

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514321

HMS Defends Review of Dental School Prof

Published On Tuesday, September 19, 2006  3:27 AM

By LAURENCE H. M. HOLLAND
Crimson Staff Writer

Professor Chester W. Douglass’ seven-figure donation to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine came four years before the school launched an investigation into his academic conduct, and had no effect on the review’s conclusion, the school’s spokesman, John Lacey, said yesterday.

Douglass donated around $1 million to the dental school in 2001, Lacey confirmed, four years before the Washington-based Environmental Working Group filed a complaint alleging that Douglass had committed “serious misrepresentations of research results.”

The Environmental Working Group accused Douglass in 2005 of ignoring one of his students’ research when he published a study that found no increased risk of bone cancer in young boys who drink fluoridated water.

The investigation was launched in 2005 and was conducted by two separate committees made up largely of faculty members not affiliated with the dental school, Lacey said in a statement.

Lacey said that each committee determined independently that Douglass had not intentionally suppressed his student’s findings, and that his position as editor of a Colgate-sponsored dental newsletter was not a conflict of interest.

“The committees came to the conclusion after a year of thoughtful and detailed work and were influenced only by the facts of the review,” Lacey said.

He also said that the review had been conducted with appropriate transparency.

“The complete misconduct review record was sent to the Office for Research Integrity, the federal office with oversight in these matters,” Lacey said. “[They] determined independently that no further investigation was warranted.”

-Staff writer Laurence H. M. Holland can be reached at lholland@fas.harvard.edu.