We got an email from Jeff Stier, associate director of the American Council on Science and Health and author of yesterday's editorial in the NY Post about the cockroach peril New York will face as a result of Whole Foods' paper bag use. We referred to ACSH in our post yesterday as "the conservative 'science' group ACSH, which is funded by Dow Chemical, Chevron, and a slew of other corporations." Stier says "Gawker owe's ACSH a correction" for that post, although you will notice that our description is accurate, and is not even contradicted by Stier's own description of the group. He also objects to the fact that "reporters often ask about funding only when some if it may come from industry," something I would characterize as "good reporting." His full letter is reprinted after the jump.
I believe Gawker owe's ACSH a correction with regard to: http://gawker.com/380338/whole-foods-environmentalists-support-cockroach-invasion
Very much like the Harvard School of Public Health, ACSH is funded by a diverse mix of corporations, foundations and individuals.
We have individual donors around the country who believe that the Ralph Nader inspired activist groups do not have a monopoly on
what is in their best interest.
We are very up-front that we accept no strings attached donations from a wide range of corporations. Our scientific advisory board, nearly 400
strong, serve as volunteers. Together with our board of trustees, http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.7/default.asp
the advisors http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.89/default.asp we are led by an impressive group of scientists, physicians, and policy advisors. Our reports go through two peer-reviews: internal (advisors)
and outside- where they are published in independent scientific journals. We have a 30 year history of going where the science takes us- even when that science runs counter to the interest
of our funders.
We are concerned that reporters often ask about funding only when some if it may come from industry. Reporters often fail to ask who funds groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council-
and how those funding sources may introduce biases as well (i.e. from a foundation whose stated mission is to remove more chemicals from the market.)
Interestingly, in the cases when we say something "anti-business" — they never ask who funds us :-)
And we are only called "conservative" when we aren't supporting stem cell research, opposing cigarette smoking, and promoting the use of Gardasil.