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. [1] [2]
In one tract, THE FEAR PROFITEERS [3], Gough, Fumento, and Milloy were all included among the eight authors, tying them together in an undisputable package. [4]
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 pagespage 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 connection between Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy is demonstrated by this Tobacco Institute document.
Copies of report can be ordered on Milloy's website:
http://www.junkscience.com/order.html, Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process. Published in 1994 by the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project for the U.S. Department of Energy. 270 pages.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2500054230-4261.html
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Science or Social Policy? Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 32 pages
Author:
Type: SPCH, SPEECH, PRESENTATIONpage 29
In October 1990, I sent a copy of the Yale study to Michael Gough, 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.Here is Mr. Gough's response.
Dear Dr. Borelli:
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.
I doubt that either of us benefits from my being on your mailing list. Please remove my name.
Sincerely,
Michael Gough
Page 30:- SLIDE 31 -
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.- SLIDE 32 -
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.
But, in 1994, Michael Gough was meeting with tobacco company strategists and advising them on exploitable weaknesses for use in disinformation campaigns. So Michael Gough is not as privately anti-smoking as he makes out to be publically.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025522931-2933.htm
Ashrae 52-89 Meeting in New Orleans Date: 23 Jan 1994
Length: 3 pages
Author: Mayada Logue
Author (Organization): PM, Philip Morris
Master ID: 2025522931/2939Page 1:
Michael Gough--quantitative risk assessment to become more ...... important in the fed. govt.verify risk assessments--cannot because we depend on epidemiology--RISK ASSESSMENTS ARE ESTIMATES ONLY
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?)
epidemiology is a very crude tool to used to predict risk Jonathan Samet- agreed with Michael Gough that -epi is crude
Samet and Gough--low dose extrapolation not always appropriate
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html
the EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
Author Jeffreys, K.; Singer, S.F.
Author (Organization) Alexis de Tocqueville Institution; University of Virginia
Characteristic DRFT, DRAFT
Type SCRT, SCIENTIFIC REPORT; FOOT, FOOTNOTEFull text (2 fragments)
page 7 S. EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10 See, for example, Michael Gough, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal...
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0008140-8209.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: a Critical Examination, 11 Aug 1994, 70 pages
Author Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Type REPORT
Full text (6 fragments)page 3 Economics University of Tennessee-Chattanooga Dr. Michael Darby Professor of Economics and Director J.M...
Lowder Eminent Scholar Auburn University Dr. Michael Gough Project Director Congressional Office of...
Professor of Economics University of Georgia Dr, Michael Marlow Professor of Economics Calilomia State...page 16 EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10. See, for example, Michael Gough, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal of...
EPA, Report, at page 4-28. 13. See, for example, Michael Fumento, "Is EPA Blowing Its Own Smoke?" lnv~tor...
page 1-2, 1-3. 15. For a general discussion, see Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, (William Morrow...page 68 66 (1981), pp. 1193- 1308; see also, generally, Michael Gough, "Risk Assessment and the Misplaced Focus on...
Is Epa Blowing Its Own Smoke? How Much Science Is Behind Its Tobacco Finding? Date: 28 Jan 1993
Length: 2 pages
Author: Fumento, M.page 2 "You cannot run science with the government changing the rules all the time.,,
- Michael Gough
<
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385413-5457.html
Do Rodent Studies Predict Human Cancers? Date: 1993 (est.)
Length: 45 pages
Author: Wildavsky, A.
Type: SCRT, REPORT, SCIENTIFICPage 24:
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."47Page 44:
47Michael Gough, "Chemical Risk Assessment Is Not Science." p. 5. To appear in Chemistry, a publication for undergraduates of the American Chemical Society.Page 30:
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, Michael Gough 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.58Page 45:
58Michael Gough. "How Much Cancer Can EPA Regulate Away?" Risk Analysis. Vol. I0, No. I (1990). pp. 1-6.
As early as 1991 we find Michael Gough appearing on a roster sponsored by Cato Institute, a place Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy both call home in 2004.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023585632-5635.html
Making Sense of Safety Date: 21 Mar 1991
Length: 4 pages
Author (Organization): Cato InstPage 1:
2nd Annual
Conference
March 21-22, 1991
Washington, D.C.Page 2:
Thursday, March 21State Salon, Sheraton Carlton
THE MEASUREMENT OF RISK
"Risk Assessment as a Tool for Decisionmaking: Is It Benign or Malignant?"
Richard B. Belzer, Office of Management and Budget
"Estimating Risks and Ignoring Killers"
Michael Gough, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress
"New Directions for Chemical Risk Assessment"
John Graham, Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-366es.html
Cato Policy Analysis No. 366 February 2, 2000
The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data
by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough 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).
http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-21-97.htmlJanuary 21, 1997
The EPA's Clean Air-oganceby Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough
Mr. Milloy is publisher of the Junk Science Home Page on the World Wide Web. Mr. Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/03-21-00d.htmlThis is another case of government action having unintended consequences. In "The EPA's Clean Air-ogance," Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough, commenting on air standards, show how "a close inspection of the EPA proposal shows that it lacks a sound basis in science."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis.html366. The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data, by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy (February 2, 2000)
http://www.cato.org/dailys/daily-index1999.html
- June 1, 1999: Saving Secret Science, by Steven Milloy and Michael Gough
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-01-99b.html
June 1, 1999
Saving Secret Scienceby Steven Milloy and Michael Gough
Steven Milloy and Michael Gough, coauthors of Silencing Science, are adjunct scholars at the Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-263es.htmlCato Policy Analysis No. 263 November 12, 1996
EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:
Guidance to Nowhereby Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough 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.
http://www.cato.org/new/catonew-01-99.html... authors Steven Milloy and Michael Gough ... 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.
... 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."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/2-13-98.htmlFebruary 13, 1998
An Empty Uniformby Michael Gough And Steven Milloy
Mr. Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Mr. Milloy is executive director of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
http://www.cato.org/new/catonew3.htmlNovember 12, 1996
EPA cancer risk guidelines flawed, Cato study says
Proposed changes, based on bad science, are a risk to public health"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 Michael Gough, director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute, in a new Cato study, "EPA's Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere."
Gough and co-author Steven Milloy, president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-263.htmlCato Policy Analysis No. 263 November 12, 1996
EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:
Guidance to Nowhereby Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough 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.
======
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/Sanders.htm
The Charles A. Sanders Page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/
http://tobaccodocuments/ctr/HK0484398-4405.html?start_page=2&end_page=2"
Tobacco Institute Newsletter, 1977 / tobacco document
Office of Technology Assessment
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. Michael Gough of the National Institutes of Health assisted in the preparation of the report. (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," OTA, Sep. 1978.)
======
Image of Gough's famous letter to Philip Morris.
