Trending Topics >>
Wednesday, April 16, 2014


Science on Trial

bottleCourts are not well-suited to deal with scientific questions. There is a judge: an appointed or elected lawyer who interprets the law. And there is a jury: randomly selected citizens who interpret the facts.

On July 24, a six-person jury in a federal courtroom in Austin arrived at a decision that will find its way into peer-reviewed scientific journals, if only because it calls into question the validity of a test that has served as a screen for toxicants and carcinogens since it was perfected in the 1980s.

The MCF-7 (Michigan Cancer Foundation) test wasn’t on trial in Judge Sam Sparks’ court. But the assay often described as “the gold standard” for measuring “estrogenic activity” in chemicals was repeatedly challenged in testimony.

The test was in court because Eastman Chemical Company sued two Austin labs that used the MCF-7 to detect “estrogenic activity” in Eastman’s resins used to make clear plastic food and drink containers. The labs, PlastiPure and CertiChem, also reported that they detected “estrogenic activity” in products made from Eastman’s Tritan monomer (See “Silencing Science,” June 1, 2013).

Estrogenic activity is the capacity of a chemical agent to mimic natural estrogen. “EA” chemicals have been linked to health problems ranging from obesity to breast cancer. They are most harmful to children—from the embryonic stage through reproductive maturity.


Eastman Chemical Company won a decisive victory.


The defendants brought distinguished scientists to Austin as expert witnesses. Tufts University’s Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana Soto (by video), and Tufts post-doctoral fellow Laura Vandenberg all testified that the MCF-7 is almost without equal in detecting estrogenic activity in chemicals.

Sonnenschein and Soto developed the test in the 1980s and subsequently discovered estrogenic activity in BPA plastics. Almost by accident, Sonnenschein explained. They were doing cancer research with human breast cells and suddenly discovered inexplicable high levels of estrogen in their lab samples. They traced the artificial estrogen to a new line of test tubes that Dow-Corning provided the lab without revealing that the test tubes were made from BPA. They have been scientifically proving the potential health risks linked to “bisphenol A” ever since.

The scientists were defending the MCF-7 test, and trying to prevent a court from sanctioning a legal definition of estrogen that Vandenberg had warned “could potentially affect a huge body of already published work as well as work going forward.”

Their testimony did not stop the jury from ruling that the two Austin labs had made false comments and “willfully engaged in false advertising” when they published results of their tests of Eastman plastics.

To reach their decision, jurors had to rule that tests performed by the labs were invalid, which perhaps also invalidates the account of the testing that was published in a National Institutes of Health peer-reviewed journal. Jurors also had to dismiss results of tests done in a University of California Davis lab, where a faculty member used a different assay to detect estrogenic activity in Tritan.

Whether the court has redefined artificial estrogen will now be sorted out by scientists and lawyers.

Eastman Chemical Company won a decisive victory.

It will be a while before any lab tests Eastman products—used in many consumer plastic products—without the consent or collaboration of the company.

Lou Dubose is the editor of The Washington Spectator.

Like this article? Get more free!
We'll send you a round-up of the best of the Spectator's journalism and political commentary as well as special offers and information so you can take action on issues you care most about. Sign up today!






A Fossil-Fueled Market Bubble

By Brett Fleishman


Why hasn’t Wall Street imploded over this yet? Well, remember how “nobody” could see the housing bubble coming?




How to End California’s Water Crisis

By Polly Cleveland and Mason Gaffney


California farmers get their water free, or close to free. Any of us who have taken elementary economics should be shouting from the rooftops or blasting through cyberspace: if you make something free, you will get waste and shortages!




Good News and Bad News about News

By Emily Schwartz Greco and William A.


The news business does look better than it did not long ago. How about the actual quality of what’s being reported? It's generally bad.





83¢ an issue is our unconscionably low introductory rate. The Spectator is reader-supported and depends on you!


Click here for more details


[National Security]

A Tortured Twist on Ethics

By Yosef Brody


Why isn't the American Psychological Association pursuing ethics charges against psychologist John Leso for abuses he helped carry out at the Guantánamo prison?



[Foreign Policy]

The Diplomatic Dance with Iran

By Chris Toensing


Iran might stumble but the Obama administration should take the greatest possible care not to trip its partner.




A Long, Gilded Life

By Sam Pizzigati


The last link between America's plutocratic past and present has left us.




No-Fault Gun Laws

By Peter Lindstrom


The increasing number of lax gun laws in many states are one reason all gun deaths (homicide, suicide and accident) been growing steadily since 2000.




You Get What You Don’t Pay For

By Ryan Alexander


No matter how hard lawmakers try to close their eyes, click their heels, and hope for the best, they can’t make highway funding magically appear. But that doesn’t stop them fiddling and flailing as they burn through the Highway Trust Fund.




America Has Long Been Twitchy about Its Sphere of Influence

By Jim Sleeper


The best reasons to impose strong sanctions against Russian-nationalist tyranny aren’t anthropological but liberal and, yes, geopolitical.






We'll send you the best of the Spectator every week.


Enter your email address below and sign up today!





  • Create an account
    Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.