Page 6 - Mecklenburg_Medicine_February-2017

Feature

When Is Science Corrupted?

Gordon Hull, PhD, Director, Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, UNC Charlotte

A paper by Cristin Kearns, just published in JAMA contributor to blood cholesterol (which was, in turn, the preferred
Internal Medicine, makes the case that the Sugar predictor of CHD) before being approached by the SRF. They
Research Foundation — an industry advocacy group published an article to this effect that appeared in November 1965.
— contributed to the catastrophe that is coronary heart The timeline is a bit murky: Kearns says the SRF visited Hegsted

disease (CHD) in the United States by paying some prominent on July 1, 1965, but ordinary journal timelines suggest the original

scientists to blame fat for CHD, not sugar, despite evidence to the study probably was complete before July. Hite suggests this means

contrary. According to Kearns, in the mid-1960s, the SRF paid the SRF knew beforehand what Hegsted would say, because of his

Harvard professors led by Mark Hegsted $48,900 (in 2016 dollars) publication record, and that this exonerates him from the pay-to-

Was this corrupted to critically review produce charge. (She does not, however, explain how the SRF had

studies linking coronary his research months before it appeared in print).

science? The question is heart disease to excess Hegsted et al. also did not think anyone would embark on a
where we draw the line sucrose consumption. low-fat, high-sugar diet: Supremely cheap corn syrup was a thing
As the article went of the future. It is the status quo now; in his book “Salt Sugar

between a dispassionate off to print, the SRF Fat,” Michael Moss argues that the convenience food industry
study of the evidence and representative reported essentially has rotated between these three additives in response to
to them his assurance consumer demand for convenience foods that can be stored easily

cases where that study that “this is quite what and require minimal or no preparation to eat. Whenever popular
was sufficiently nudged by we had in mind, and opinion decides fat is a problem, lower-fat but higher-sugar and
we look forward to its salt alternatives are offered. When sugar is discredited, fat and

inappropriate factors to appearance in print” salt go up. And so on. But this was arguably not Hegsted’s world.
cross an ethical line. (qt E3). The resulting Indeed, research in science studies dating at least to 1997 points
review (which made to an extremely complicated socio-political-scientific nexus that

no mention of the generated dietary recommendations to cut fat and cholesterol; the

authors’ ties to the science is and was disputed, but was only part of the debate. And,

SRF) made a herculean effort to discredit the research linking of course, the role of sugar also is debated still. One lesson is that

sugar consumption to CHD, sometimes even inconsistently. It first food research is hard, because double-blinded studies where you

denied that epidemiological evidence was relevant in determining precisely control food

dietary causes of CHD, but (in the next part) also implied that Whenever popular intake long enough in
epidemiological evidence pointed to dietary cholesterol and opinion decides fat is two different groups to
saturated fat as the primary causes of CHD (E3). measure health outcomes

Was this corrupted science? There are legitimate, honestly- a problem, lower-fat essentially are impossible.
held scientific disagreements, and certainly legitimate clinical but higher-sugar and Hence the reliance on
ones about what to do with that science. The question is debated proxies like serum

where we draw the line between a dispassionate study of the salt alternatives are cholesterol, or isolated
evidence and cases where that study was sufficiently nudged by offered. When sugar is populations with similar
inappropriate factors to cross an ethical line. Kearns’ research diets, as in Okinawa.

makes Hegsted’s work look like a nearly paradigmatic case of discredited, fat and salt So, was Hegsted’s work
corruption. If so, it was consequential corruption. Coronary go up. And so on. morally compromised by
heart disease is, of course, the No. 1 cause of death in the the payment he received

United States; only cancer (all of them combined) comes close. from the SRF? And, to

That implies large numbers of people are now dead because of what extent is the SRF

bought-and-paid-for science, and a nontrivial part of the blame morally compromised? They apparently have pursued a marketing

for this rests on Hegsted (who died in 2009). This would be up strategy since the 1950s encouraging people to eat a lower-fat (and

there with the tobacco industry’s efforts to bury the link between therefore, presumably, higher-sugar) diet. For that matter, when is

smoking and cancer, or the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to bury research into the relationship between food and particular health

the link between carbon emissions and climate change. outcomes robust enough to serve as a basis for policy? I don’t have

On the other hand, one can argue (as does Adele Hite, a PhD the answers to these questions, but given the prominence of CHD

candidate in Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media at N.C. and other diseases like Type II diabetes that appear to be — most

State) that the situation is more complicated than that. Hegsted and of the time, at least — generated by lifestyles, it is urgent to ask and

colleagues apparently thought consumption of fat was the main answer them as honestly as we can.

6 | February 2017 • Mecklenburg Medicine