The delicate balance of scientific integrity was disrupted when a single contractor held the pen for both regulators and the regulated.
In 2007, the National Institutes of Health made a dramatic decision that would send ripples through the scientific community: it fired a contractor tasked with evaluating the safety of common chemicals. The reason? The firm was simultaneously working for the very chemical manufacturers whose products it was assessing 1 7 .
This case of conflicting interests exposes the complex ethical tightrope walked by scientists who navigate between public health protection and corporate interests. It raises critical questions about how we assess the safety of chemicals that permeate our daily lives—from plastics to pesticides—and who we can trust to tell us the truth about their risks.
In scientific research, a conflict of interest occurs when professional judgment concerning a primary interest, such as research validity, may be unduly influenced by a secondary interest, typically financial gain 5 .
The case of Sciences International exemplifies this problem. For eight years, this Virginia-based consulting firm held a $5 million contract with NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) while simultaneously working for chemical manufacturers including Dow Chemical and BASF 1 .
Researchers have identified established tactics used to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests 5 :
Plastic bottles, can linings
Plastics, rubber
Antifreeze, plastics
Infant nutrition
The scrutiny of Sciences International began with its work on bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. The firm had been responsible for reviewing scientific literature on BPA, writing draft reports, and even helping choose the expert panel that would produce the final assessment of the chemical's risks to human reproduction 1 .
The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization, revealed that Sciences International had undisclosed clients among manufacturers of bisphenol A 1 . This discovery triggered immediate concern because:
The firm produced the first draft of the government's report on BPA risks 4
It participated in reviews of at least 14 chemicals since 1999 1
It helped select members of scientific review panels 4
When questioned, Sciences International President Herman Gibb claimed that "no conflicts existed that impaired judgment or objectivity" and that employees evaluating chemicals for NIH "have historically been insulated" from other workers 4 . However, NIH remained unconvinced, stating it still had "concerns about conflict of interest" after interviewing company employees and reviewing client records 4 .
The Sciences International case is not isolated but symptomatic of broader systemic issues. As Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group noted, "A huge portion of chemical reviews have been farmed out to private contractors who also work for chemical companies" 1 .
A 2005 Government Accountability Office report had previously identified potential problems in such arrangements, recommending that NIH and EPA "develop formal policies for evaluating and managing conflicts of interest when entering into research arrangements with nongovernmental partners, particularly those also representing a regulated industry" 1 .
| Chemical | Common Uses | Health Concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Bisphenol A (BPA) | Plastic bottles, can linings | Reproductive health effects |
| Styrene | Plastics, rubber | Reproductive risks |
| Ethylene glycol | Antifreeze, plastics | Developmental toxicity |
| Soy formula | Infant nutrition | Developmental effects |
Sciences International works simultaneously for NIH and chemical manufacturers
GAO report highlights potential problems with such arrangements
NIH suspends Sciences International from BPA work
NIH terminates Sciences International contract
For industrial chemists and chemical safety assessors, navigating ethical responsibilities requires specific tools and approaches. The American Chemical Society emphasizes that "the practice of chemistry from concept through research, development, manufacture, use, and disposal must be done safely to minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment" .
Understanding frameworks like REACH (EU), TSCA (U.S.), and OSHA standards is essential to prevent legal risks and ensure compliance 3 .
Upholding honesty in research, testing, and reporting. Data falsification, non-disclosure of harmful effects, or misleading claims can result in legal action, reputational damage, and loss of consumer trust 3 .
Applying green chemistry principles, reducing hazardous waste, and developing eco-friendly alternatives 3 .
Proper handling of hazardous substances, accurate labeling, and adherence to GHS (Globally Harmonized System) standards prevent accidents and legal liabilities 3 .
| Strategy | Implementation | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure | Regular reporting of financial interests | Identify potential conflicts |
| Management Plans | Specific actions to address identified conflicts | Mitigate bias risk |
| Training | Education on ethics and conflict recognition | Promote awareness |
| Transparency | Public posting of conflict information | Enable external scrutiny |
The firing of Sciences International by NIH serves as a cautionary tale about the vulnerabilities in our chemical safety assessment system. It reveals how financial interests can potentially compromise the scientific integrity that protects public health. What makes these conflicts particularly concerning is that the assessed chemicals—like bisphenol A that leaches from can linings into food 1 —affect millions of consumers daily.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension in chemical research, which often occupies what Roald Hoffmann calls the "tense middle" between pure and applied science 6 . This positioning creates inherent ethical challenges that require constant vigilance.
As we move toward establishing new science-policy panels on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, protecting these processes from conflicts of interest becomes increasingly crucial 5 . The lessons from the Sciences International case remind us that maintaining scientific integrity requires not just good science but robust systems that identify and manage the competing interests that can undermine it.
The chemistry enterprise creates tremendous benefits for society, from life-saving medicines to innovative materials. Ensuring that these advances don't come at the cost of hidden risks requires a commitment to transparency and objectivity that stands above corporate interests. Only then can public trust in science be maintained and protected.