John A. Katzenellenbogen, a chemistry professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana, and an expert on how hormones works in cells, does not work with BPA but said he had seen researchers who study it argue bitterly at conferences, over supposedly identical experiments that had somehow yielded opposite results.
Most of the evidence against BPA comes from studies that find harmful effects in rats and mice at low doses comparable to the levels to which people are exposed. Sometimes the results seem downright weird, indicating that low doses could be worse than higher ones. There is sharp disagreement among scientists about how to interpret some research. The disputes arise in part because scientists from different disciplines — endocrinologists versus toxicologists, academic researchers versus those at regulatory agencies — do research in different ways that can make findings hard to reconcile. – New York Times (Link)
I picked this article because the issue it grapples with is an interesting-but certainly uncommon in science-merge of medicine, research, government and the private sector. All those factors come into an interesting play when science cannot find one answer and the public is aware of only one side of the story. Though it is lengthy, I encourage you to read through it because it does give good insight into to the duality of research results and the results of that duality.
Please leave comments below on your thoughts on the article, etc.