Credit: Brian E Kushner / Shutterstock.com
To the Editor,
We recently became aware of a guest commentary published in The Cancer Letter concerning “Field of Dread,” a Philadelphia Inquirer investigation into artificial turf, “forever chemicals,” and the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team.
The article does not seem to have followed your guidelines on disclosing conflicts by its authors, which reads: “For all submitted commentary pieces, the authors’ conflicts should be disclosed.”
One of the co-authors, Kyle Walsh, consulted with Phillies officials this past spring to help the team reply to numerous written questions that Inquirer reporters had submitted to the team prior to the March 7 publication of “Field of Dread.” This was not Walsh’s first interaction with the Phillies; in an exchange with one reporter, he said he had also consulted with the team about player cancer deaths in 2017 (Walsh has said that he was unpaid for this work).
We ask that you republish the online guest commentary with a note that explains his role as a consultant for the Phillies, as well as include this clarification in a future print edition of The Cancer Letter.
Additionally, we were surprised and disappointed to see the authors use such words as “propagandized,” “insinuation” and “exploitative” to describe the motives of these two national award-winning investigative reporters.
We would have appreciated the opportunity beforehand to reply to these personalized attacks with facts about their careful reporting, which was built upon extensive exchanges with the Phillies, members of the Tug McGraw Foundation, and PFAS and cancer experts—including Walsh, whom we quoted extensively.
In fairness, we ask that you include a written response to their commentary. Please let us know if you will consider that.
Sincerely,
James Neff
Deputy managing editor
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Walsh and Friedman respond:
To the Editor:
We are disappointed that the Philadelphia Inquirer continues in its pattern of misrepresentation, cherry-picking what might support their predetermined conclusions while eschewing facts running counter to the fallacious narrative that they have foisted upon readers who deserve better.
Specifically:
- Neither of us is a consultant, paid or otherwise, for the Philadelphia Phillies. We were asked at different times to render scientific opinions regarding unsupported claims made by the media, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, and were happy to do so. These interactions were motivated by the Phillies’ concern for their players, and by our concern for all those affected by brain tumors. No remuneration was made, financial or in kind, and this could have been verified with a call to the Phillies or by viewing the disclosures section on our faculty webpages.
- One of us (KMW) indeed spoke to the Philadelphia Inquirer on multiple occasions and shared with them similar information that had been conveyed to the Phillies previously. If providing expert opinion at no cost constitutes a consulting relationship, then that relationship exists equally with both the Phillies and the Inquirer. Of course, where it differs is in how the Phillies carefully considered what was shared with them and took it under advisement, whereas the Inquirer seemed eager to minimize any facts that imperiled their headline.
- We attempted to publish a letter in the Philadelphia Inquirer on two occasions but were rejected both times. These letters expressed our disappointment in a professional manner, and the second was particularly heavy on facts and muted in tone.
- In the face of this history, the words that the Inquirer finds objectionable appear justified, perhaps even understated.
- Finally, we welcome serious discussion with all stakeholders who are interested in the etiology of brain tumors. Not long ago we believed that the Inquirer might be counted among them, but paraphrasing Aaron Sorkin in The American President: “This is a time for serious people and your 15 minutes are up.”
Sincerely,
Kyle M. Walsh, PhD,
Associate professor and director,
Division of Neuro-epidemiology,
The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center at Duke.
Henry S. Friedman, MD
The James B Powell, Jr. Professor of Neuro-Oncology,
The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center at Duke.
The Cancer Letter responds:
Public discussion of conflicts of interest is never wasted, and over-disclosure is a sound strategy for preventing controversy.
The Cancer Letter submission guidelines require contributors to disclose their conflicts, potential conflicts—and appearances of conflicts. The Cancer Letter is not a peer-reviewed journal. However, as a practical matter, we agree with the recommendations on conflicts of interest by the International Committee of Journal and Medical Journal Editors.
As with medical journals, we can only ask for disclosure, but cannot be certain that proper disclosure has been made by an author.
Examining this issue retroactively, I disagree with James Neff’s assertion that Kyle Walsh had failed to disclose a relevant conflict of interest. Based on Walsh’s and Henry Friedman’s letter, I fail to see a conflict or an appearance thereof.
There was no payment, no consultancy agreement, not even a nondisclosure agreement, no intellectual property rights, no stock ownership.
I don’t believe that taking a phone call or responding to an email to informally express a scientific opinion—to a reporter and to a business entity—makes for a conflict and warrants disclosure, even when over-disclosure is your default strategy.
While I believe that no corrigendum is warranted based on available information, I thank all correspondents for a robust discussion.
This exchange, in my opinion, provides all the disclosure that might be necessary.
Sincerely,
Paul Goldberg
Editor and publisher
The Cancer Letter
