The Conversation (0)
Forbes reported that the well-respected International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which provides assessments of carcinogens, appears to overstate or otherwise skew its results.
Forbes reported that the well-respected International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which provides assessments of carcinogens, appears to overstate or otherwise skew its results.
As quoted in the market news:
In its evaluation, IARC considers experimental evidence of carcinogenicity but gives priority to human epidemiologic evidence. But – as pointed out by [epidemiologist John] Ioannidis and others — epidemiologic studies are subject to high rates of false positives. When IARC’s classification of individual agents is examined critically it appears that the agency’s ratings may be systematically inflated.
A second problem with the IARC process — one that reinforces the classification problem — is that some of the working groups convened to assess a particular agent have included scientists who have carried out studies on the agent under evaluation. It is fanciful to think that scientists who have a vital stake in a particular question can evaluate the evidence, including their own studies, dispassionately.
Finally, IARC reaches its assessments by consensus. But this can mean that those who are more forceful and persuasive may influence the group decision-making process. In addition, consensus implies a philosophic stance which has nothing to do with science.