Talk:Michael Gough

I have relocated the previous text to this talk page. As it was the page - which is supposed to be about Gough - was very difficult to read due to the inclusion of tangential material and formatting/referencing problems. The best of this material needs re-integrating -- I'll try and return later today. Bob --

Michael Gough was involved as "peer-review" on the Tobacco Institute's: Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.

Michael Gough co-authored a book with Steven J. Milloy, appropriately and ironically titled Silencing Science published by Cato Institute. Gough is listed as "hired gun" for trial testimony by Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is a Koch-Scaife-Coors-Bradley funded organ. 

In one tract, THE FEAR PROFITEERS, Gough, Fumento, and Milloy were all included among the eight authors, tying them together in an undisputable package. 

 http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/PB000040.html  Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc., "Choices In Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process" 	Date: 1994 Length: 293 pages  page 7 "We would like to express our deep appreciation to ... Michael Gough, Ph.D. (Manager, Biological Applications Program, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress) ..."  Steven J. Milloy, Project Manager Pamela S. Aycock, Research Manager Jason E. Johnston, Senior Research Associate Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc. October 1994   A documented 1994</B> connection between Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy is demonstrated by this Tobacco Institute document.<BR> Copies of report can be ordered on Milloy</B>'s website: <BR>  http://www.junkscience.com/order.html, Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process. Published in 1994</B> by the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project</B> for the U.S. Department of Energy. 270 pages. </Blockquote> <P>

<P> 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2500054230-4261.html <P> Environmental Tobacco Smoke Science or Social Policy? Date: 1992</B> (est.)<BR> Length: 32 pages<BR> Author: <BR> Type: SPCH, SPEECH, PRESENTATION <P> page 29 <BR> In October 1990, I sent a copy of the Yale study to Michael Gough</B>, Program Manager, Biological Application Program, in the Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States. The Yale study, you will recall, was the largest study on ETS ever conducted in the United States. And it reported no statistically significant increased risk due to ETS exposure in the home, workplace or in social .settings. <P> Here is Mr. Gough</B>'s response. <P> <I>Dear Dr. Borelli: <P> Thank you for your earlier mailing of the Varela Ph.D thesis and your letter of October 3, 1990. Without careful reading of the thesis or careful attention to the ETS issue, I tend to agree with the thesis and the general conclusions of your letter. On the other hand, I probably profoundly disagree with any use that might be made of those conclusions by Philip Morris or any other tobacco company~ Anything that reduces smoking has substantial health benefits, and making smokers into pariahs, for whatever reasons, does just that. <P> I doubt that either of us benefits from my being on your mailing list. Please remove my name. <P> Sincerely, <P> Michael Gough</B></I> <P> <BR> Page 30: <P> - SLIDE 31 -<BR> As you can see he tends to agree with the findings of the study. He agrees with the science. He says the science is right. Then he says the science doesn't matter. He further says, for all intents and purposes that these data should be ignored because of the social agenda against smoking. <P> - SLIDE 32 -<BR> AS a scientist, I find this kind of attitude to be most disturbing. Science is, after all, the pursuit of knowledge based on truth. Science is not meant to conform, regardless of fact or lack thereof, to the preconceived notions of individuals who have taken it upon themselves to validate a theory that is based on conjecture or the social whims or beliefs of specific groups of individuals. Science is meant to find the truth, and when it comes to ETS, scientific truth has fallen by the wayside. <P> <BR> </Blockquote> But, in 1994</B>, Michael Gough</B> was meeting with tobacco company strategists and advising them on exploitable weaknesses for use in disinformation campaigns. So Michael Gough</B> is not as privately anti-smoking as he makes out to be publically. <P> 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025522931-2933.htm <P> Ashrae 52-89 Meeting in New Orleans Date: 23 Jan 1994</B><BR> Length: 3 pages<BR> Author: Mayada Logue<BR> Author (Organization): PM, Philip Morris<BR> Master ID: 2025522931/2939 <P> Page 1:<BR> Michael Gough</B>--quantitative risk assessment to become more ...... important in the fed. govt. <P> verify risk assessments--cannot because we depend on epidemiology--RISK ASSESSMENTS ARE ESTIMATES ONLY <P> Indoor radon and voc--unresolved and unresolvable --human evidence all the studies done permit two interpretations (radon) increased risk--not an increase--(doesn' t the SAME APPLY FOR ETS?) <P> epidemiology is a very crude tool to used to predict risk Jonathan Samet</B>- agreed with <B>Michael Gough</B> that -epi is crude <P> <B>Samet</B> and <B>Gough</B>--low dose extrapolation not always appropriate <P> </Blockquote>

<BR> <Blockquote>

http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html <P> the EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Date: <B>1994</B> (est.)<BR> Length: 19 pages<BR> Author   Jeffreys, K.; Singer, S.F.<BR> Author (Organization)   Alexis de Tocqueville Institution; <B>University of Virginia</B><BR> Characteristic   DRFT, DRAFT<BR> Type 	SCRT, SCIENTIFIC REPORT; FOOT, FOOTNOTE <P> Full text (2 fragments)<BR> page 7 S. EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10 See, for example, <B>Michael Gough</B>, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal...<BR> <BR>

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0008140-8209.html<BR> Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: a Critical Examination, 11 Aug <B>1994</B>, 70 pages<BR> <BR> Author   Alexis de Tocqueville Institution<BR> Type 	REPORT<BR> Full text (6 fragments) <P> page 3 Economics University of Tennessee-Chattanooga Dr. Michael Darby Professor of Economics and Director J.M...<BR> Lowder Eminent Scholar Auburn University Dr. <B>Michael Gough</B> Project Director Congressional Office of...<BR> Professor of Economics University of Georgia Dr, Michael Marlow Professor of Economics Calilomia State... <P> page 16 EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10. See, for example, <B>Michael Gough</B>, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal of...<BR> EPA, Report, at page 4-28. 13. See, for example, Michael Fumento, "Is EPA Blowing Its Own Smoke?" lnv~tor...<BR> page 1-2, 1-3. 15. For a general discussion, see Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, (William Morrow... <P> page 68 66 (1981), pp. 1193- 1308; see also, generally, <B>Michael Gough</B>, "Risk Assessment and the Misplaced Focus on...<BR> </Blockquote>

<Blockquote> <B>Is Epa Blowing Its Own Smoke? How Much Science Is Behind Its Tobacco Finding?</B> Date: 28 Jan <B>1993</B><BR> Length: 2 pages<BR> Author: <B>Fumento, M.</B> <P> page 2   "You cannot run science with the government changing the rules all the time.,,<BR> - <B>Michael Gough</B><BR> </Blockquote> <P> <<Blockquote> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385413-5457.html <P> <B>Do Rodent Studies Predict Human Cancers?</B>  Date: <B>1993</B> (est.)<BR> Length: 45 pages<BR> Author:  Wildavsky, A.<BR> Type:  SCRT, REPORT, SCIENTIFIC <P> Page 24:<BR> The argument that if we don't regulate we'll count dead bodies is dead wrong. The predicted cancer rate at one in a million (one, even one in 100,000 or one in 10,000) is so low it will never be detected by epidemiology or any other method unless we know a lot more about the mechanism of cancer causation. By this time the reader should have smelled the rat in this argument. "The problem with. . . risk assessments.., based on animal tests," the Office of Technology Assessment's Michael Gough tells students, "is that their theories cannot be tested."47 <P> Page 44:<BR> 47<B>Michael Gough</B>, <B>"Chemical Risk Assessment Is Not Science."</B> p. 5. To appear in Chemistry, a publication for undergraduates of the American Chemical Society. <P> Page 30:<BR> The chemicals regulated, as our Superfund study shows, are so small in amount and so far from people that they could hardly do much damage unless, through unknown mechanisms, very small exposures are doing significant harm. In a seminal study, <B>Michael Gough</B> showed that if everything EPA claimed for its regulation proved out, the most that could happen would amount to a one percent or smaller reduction in cancer rates.58 <P> Page 45:<BR> 58<B>Michael Gough</B>. "<B>How Much Cancer Can EPA Regulate Away?</B>" Risk Analysis. Vol. I0, No. I (<B>1990</B>). pp. 1-6.<BR> </Blockquote> <BR>

As early as <B>1991</B> we find <B>Michael Gough</B> appearing on a roster sponsored by Cato Institute, a place <B>Michael Gough</B> and Steven J. Milloy both call home in <B>2004</B>. <P>

<Blockquote> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023585632-5635.html <P> Making Sense of Safety Date: 21 Mar <B>1991</B><BR> Length: 4 pages<BR> Author (Organization): <B>Cato Inst</B> <P> Page 1:<BR> 2nd Annual<BR> Conference<BR> March 21-22, 1991<BR> Washington, D.C. <P> Page 2:<BR> Thursday, March 21 <P> State Salon, Sheraton Carlton <P> THE MEASUREMENT OF RISK<BR> "Risk Assessment as a Tool for Decisionmaking: Is It Benign or Malignant?"<BR> Richard B. Belzer, Office of Management and Budget<BR> <B>"Estimating Risks and Ignoring Killers"</B><BR> <B>Michael Gough</B>, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress<BR> "New Directions for Chemical Risk Assessment"<BR> John Graham, Harvard School of Public Health<BR> </Blockquote> <P><BR>

<P> <Blockquote>

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-366es.html <P> <B>Cato</B> Policy Analysis No. 366 	February 2, <B>2000</B> <P> The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data <P> by <B>Michael Gough and Steven Milloy</B> <P> <B>Michael Gough</B> is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. A biologist by training, he is the author of Dioxin, Agent Orange (1986) and a former staff member at the National Institutes of Health and the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Steven Milloy>, also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is a lawyer and the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page, www.junkscience.com. He is the author of Science without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research (1995). <BR>

http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-21-97.html <P> January 21, <B>199</B>7<BR> The EPA's Clean Air-ogance <P> by <B>Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough</B> <P> Mr. <B>Milloy</B> is publisher of the Junk Science Home Page on the World Wide Web. Mr. <B>Gough</B> is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. <BR>

http://www.cato.org/dispatch/03-21-00d.html <P> This is another case of government action having unintended consequences. In "The EPA's Clean Air-ogance," <B>Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough</B>, commenting on air standards, show how "a close inspection of the EPA proposal shows that it lacks a sound basis in science." <BR> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis.html <P> 366. The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data, by <B>Michael Gough and Steven Milloy</B> (February 2, <B>2000</B>) <BR>

http://www.cato.org/dailys/daily-index1999.html <P> <P> http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-01-99b.html <P> June 1, 1999<BR> Saving Secret Science <P> by <B>Steven Milloy and Michael Gough</B> <P> <B>Steven Milloy and Michael Goug</B>h, coauthors of Silencing Science, are adjunct scholars at the Cato Institute. <BR>
 * 1)  June 1, <B>1999</B>: Saving Secret Science, by <B>Steven Milloy and Michael Gough</B>

https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-263es.html <P> <B>Cato</B> Policy Analysis No. 263 	November 12, <B>1996</B> <P> EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:<BR> Guidance to Nowhere <P> by <B>Michael Gough and Steven Milloy</B> <P> <B>Michael Gough</B> is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Steven Milloy> is president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in Washington, D.C. <BR>

http://www.cato.org/new/catonew-01-99.html <P> ... authors <B>Steven Milloy and Michael Gough</B> ... offering readers a "how-to" guide to silencing science. Tips from the authors, with supporting material drawn from real-life cases, cover such areas as banning science education, regulating science out of existence, putting the squeeze on federal or private funds, using intimidation and harassment, seizing researchers' tools, blackmail, playing the lawsuit card, using "the Oliver North Method" (obliterating the evidence), hiding data (refusing to share the data for others to review it), discrediting viewpoints and using the media to spread misinformation. <P> ... Once groups pursuing a political agenda have successfully silenced science, they proceed to "fill the void" they've created. One popular technique for doing that, Gough and Milloy note, is to use "junk science," defined as "exaggerated or overinterpreted science used to advance some predetermined, often politically correct, politically desired, or financially lucrative conclusion." The authors add, "In the best light, junk science is poor science; in the worst light, it is fraud." <BR>

http://www.cato.org/dailys/2-13-98.html <P> February 13, <B>1998</B><BR> An Empty Uniform <P> by Michael Gough And Steven Milloy <P> Mr. <B>Gough</B> is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Mr. <B>Milloy</B> is executive director of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition <BR>

http://www.cato.org/new/catonew3.html <P> November 12, <B>1996</B> <P> EPA cancer risk guidelines flawed, <B>Cato</B> study says<BR> Proposed changes, based on bad science, are a risk to public health <P> "The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revisions to its cancer risk assessment guidelines represent a setback for public health, science and the EPA cancer risk assessment process," says <B>Michael Gough</B>, director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute, in a new <B>Cato</B> study, "EPA's Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere." <P> <B>Gough and co-author Steven Milloy</B>, president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network <BR>

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-263.html <P> <B>Cato</B> Policy Analysis No. 263 	November 12, <B>1996</B> <P> EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:<BR> Guidance to Nowhere <P> by <B>Michael Gough and Steven Milloy</B> <P> <B>Michael Goug</B>h is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Steven Milloy is president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in Washington, D.C. <P> </Blockquote> <BR>

<P>

=
===== <P> <BR> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/Sanders.htm <P> The Charles A. Sanders Page <P> <BR> http://tobaccodocuments.org/<BR> http://tobaccodocuments/ctr/HK0484398-4405.html?start_page=2&end_page=2" <P> Tobacco Institute Newsletter, <B>1977</B> / tobacco document<BR> Office of Technology Assessment <P> Sanders was on the OTA Health Program Advisory Committee. Stuart H. Altman of the Florence Heller School at Brandeis University was a fellow committee member. Lester Breslow was Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Efficacy and Safety, and Kenneth E. Warner was a member. <B>Michael Gough</B> of the National Institutes of Health assisted in the preparation of the report. (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," OTA, Sep. 1978.) <P> <BR>

=
===== <P> http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&if=avpidx&bool=Person%3A%20Michael%20Gough&docid=2501361525&docnum=1&summary=0&sel1= <P> Image of <B>Gough</B>'s famous letter to Philip Morris. <P> </Blockquote>