The Case of Deborah Rice: Who Is the Environmental Protection Agency Protecting?

Perspective F or researchers who operate at the intersection of basic biology and toxicology, following the data where they take you—as any good scientist would—carries the risk that you will be publicly attacked as a crank, charged with scientifi c misconduct, or removed from a government scientifi c review panel. Such a fate may seem unthinkable to those involved in primary research, but it has increasingly become the norm for toxicologists and environmental investigators. If you fi nd evidence that a compound worth billions of dollars to its manufacturer poses a public health risk, you will almost certainly fi nd yourself in the middle of a contentious battle that has little to do with scientifi c truth (see Box 1). The latest example of this trend involves decabromobiphenyl ether, a polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) commonly known as deca. A widely used fi re retardant, deca has been brought under close scrutiny by a growing number of reports of its toxicity. Increased levels of the agent have been found in the bodies of young children. To respond to this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a panel of experts in 2006 to determine the state of risk that accompanied its use and appointed Deborah Rice to chair the panel of outside experts. Rice, who had held an appointment as a senior toxicologist at the EPA, and who is now a toxicologist for the state of Maine, has won wide respect for her studies of neurotoxins. Indeed, in 2004, the EPA recognized her with one of its most prestigious scientifi c awards for " exceptionally high-quality research into lead's toxicity " (for information on the award, Under her chairmanship, the PBDE report was completed and submitted in February of 2007. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a chemical industry trade group, did not elect to contest the statements of the report; it chose instead to accuse Rice of bias against the use of deca and to pressure the EPA to dismiss her from the panel. In a letter to EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development George Gray on May 3, 2007, the ACC argued that Rice's appointment represented a confl ict of interest and " might lack the impartiality and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review of the data, " based in part on testimony she gave to the Maine State Legislature describing the dangers of deca-BDE and advocating …