When the Media Stitches Up Scientists: PBS Pulls a Fast One on Phthalates

One of the most depressing things about writing for STATS was the discovery that many scientists are deeply reluctant to talk to journalists. Most cite the fear of being misquoted or having their positions misinterpreted to fit a black and white narrative that, in scientific terms, is marked by numerous shades of gray. Just as depressing is the discovery that those who talk to journalists are often reluctant to correct mistakes because they fear jeopardizing their future access to the paper. Not all journalists are like this; we have been immensely impressed with how much effort some reporters put into trying to understand complex issues; but the reality is too many either don’t care or are presold on one side of a controversy.

We got a taste of that in the last few weeks, having been approached by PBS’ “NOW” for balance on a story about the supposed risks of phthalates. We could only wish that the media treated more pressing public health problems, such as tobacco and lung cancer in women – with the avidity they have gone after this topic. But nothing quite prepared us for the degree to which “NOW” edited out information that challenged the show’s narrative. It’s not that my colleague Rebecca Goldin, a woman recently honored by the Association of Women in Mathematics for outstanding work, was trying to make the case that phthalates were safe; she was simply saying that the evidence that they were dangerous was very weak.

Perhaps because a significant amount of the scientific evidence on phthalates contradicts the alarming message that Mark Shapiro, an investigative journalist from Berkeley, pushes in his new book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products’ (which formed the basis for the NOW show), it was deemed confusing or inconvenient in the face of an urgent appeal by one scientist – Dr. Shanna Swan, the primary source in the NOW program – to respond to the possibility of risk.

But it’s hard to accept that as a possible explanation given that the arguments against Swan’s work (made by independent experts one might add, as well as the plastics industry) were ignored. And the degree of deception really hits home when you consider the full facts behind the strongest argument marshaled by Shapiro and NOW for phthalates being a risk: Europe’s ban on phthalates in toys for children under three.

The permanent ban in 2007 succeeded a series of temporary bans which were not supported by the scientific evidence presented by the European Union’s own risk assessments and which elicited some harsh criticism from the scientists involved in conducting these assessments (see the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Journal of Environmental Monitoring and EurActiv).

This was left, so to speak, on the editing room floor. And so the question of whether there was sufficient scientific evidence for precautionary legislation in Europe, and whether there is a need for such a ban here went unasked. Instead, the journalists at NOW made a decision: there ought to be a ban.

And here is a mathematician’s reply.