It Isn't About Malaria

The right wing(nuts) use the term “sound science” to bash any research or line of inquiry raising environmental or health concerns, that potentially threatens an entrenched economic interest.

A favorite sound science example goes something like this: some liberal environmentalist, Rachel Carlson or William Ruckelshaus (!?) depending on the story, leads an army of politically-motivated researchers, who find some nitwit problem (something with birds eggs or rats getting cancer) with that all-important crop protection and vector control chemical, DDT. These pernicious individuals and their fellow travelers in the EPA and the United Nations essentially effect a worldwide ban of DDT. The result is a mounting toll of millions of deaths from malaria in Africa, Asia and Latin America (60 million lives, according to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, of the American Council of Science and Health – ACSH).

Nice story. A lot of people get taken in by it. However, it is largely a folk tale that runs roughshod over the facts. Worse yet, it has nothing to do with malaria, and everything to do with undermining the efforts of individuals concerned about reducing exposures to persistent organic pollutants in general (all those deaths, because some environmentalist wanted to protect some birds or prevent some phantom cancer epidemic). The risk-benefit analysis for DDT is scarcely applicable to other POPs, such as PCBs or dioxins. Also, the industrialized world, which presumably includes the DDT-loving Reason Foundation or ACSH, has at best treated with neglect development and public health initiatives in the Third World, including malaria control.

The real story is much more interesting, providing many teachable moments. A little taste of that story can be found here. Understanding the story of malaria and DDT requires drawing together many threads, including the interaction between land use and tropical diseases, the mechanics of malaria control programs, the reasons for insect disease resistance to pesticides, the science involved with assessing human health and ecological hazards from pesticides use, and the politics of public health in the Third World. Teasing the real story out takes some effort (I’m wading through the literature right now), and unfortunately it will probably never be as punchy a master narrative as the factoids being peddled by the sound scientists. I’ll report back from time to time, as I draw the threads together.