In response to allegations of suppression of science, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a draft report that the agency will continue to modify due to CDC concerns that the report too closely links environmental pollution with adverse health effects in the Great Lakes region.

The draft, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was posted on the CDC website on March 12 and is the latest version of the report. CDC also posted an earlier draft from 2004 and says it will release the report's final revisions later in March. The agency continues to hold reservations over the draft report's release and has submitted it to the Institute of Medicine for an independent review of study methodology.

Just a few weeks before the latest draft's release, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) exposed the report's six-month release delay and the agency's plan to substantially rewrite the report. At that time, the planned modifications would have deemphasized findings that could be construed as implicating environmental toxins as being partially responsible for increased infant mortality and cancer rates in the region. The latest draft, which has been through a rigorous independent review already, currently emphasizes that the increase of health problems and pollution should not be considered directly correlated but rather indicates important areas for future research. It is unclear whether the current wording of the draft report addresses the possible implication of cause and effect about which CDC has expressed concern.

Outcry from the scientific community about the report's delay and possible redrafting prompted Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to investigate possible suppression of the report and allegations of illegal retaliation against Christopher De Rosa, the outspoken lead author who was demoted after criticizing the report's publication delay. Dingell and Stupak sent the agency a Feb. 6 letter demanding the report's release.

As Stupak noted, "It is unfortunate that it took a congressional investigation and intense media coverage to prompt the release of a scientific report that has been five years in the making." Considering CDC's ongoing resistance to accept a report written by its own scientists, continued oversight may be crucial to ensuring that the agency does not undercut years of scientific research and analysis in the final version of the report.