Авторы исследования о загрязнении метом в новозеландских домах извинились за сокрытие конфликта интересов

The authors of a new study on meth contamination in homes have come under fire for failing to disclose links to the meth testing industry. They have apologised for what they said was an unintentional oversight. The study 'The impact of New Zealand's 2018 methamphetamine policy on residential contamination', published in the New Zealand Medical Journal (NZMJ) earlier this month, reignited the debate about safe levels of passive exposure to the drug. The researchers found a "substantial" increase in meth contamination following the hard-hitting 2018 'Gluckman report', which said the country had been gripped by hysteria and people did not need to test their homes unless it was suspected they had been meth labs. It recommended raising clean-up standards from 0.5μg to 15μg of meth per 100cm2. The new study called for a return to tighter standards, citing potential serious health issues from third-hand meth exposure, particularly in children and suggested the government might consider subsidising testing to encourage uptake. It's since been revealed one the authors works at the methamphetamine testing company that provided the study data. No conflicts of interest were declared. Lead researcher Dr Muhammad Irfan and his co-authors were forced to defend their work after the authors of the 'Gluckman report' raised concerns with the NZMJ. In response to questions from RNZ, Irfan accepted his co-author's relationship with a meth-testing company should have been disclosed. The journal said the paper went through the usual peer-review process and it has since received an updated conflict of interest statement and apology from the authors. Study sparks backlash The scientists behind the 2018 'Gluckman report' into meth contamination standards said widespread testing had been driven by the testing industry. Sir Peter Gluckman, who was chief science advisor at the time, said there had been an inexplicable leap in logic where clean-up standards for meth labs became a measure for passive exposure. Regarding the new study by Irfan et al., Gluckman backed the concerns raised. Dr Anne Bardsley, who led the 2018 study and who has a phD in molecular biology, said her concerns with the Irfan et al. paper went beyond the undisclosed conflict of interest and told RNZ the evidence appeared to be cherry-picked. She said she was surprised to see the work published in a reputable journal. Among her various concerns about the study data and methodology, which she said wasn't robust, were the article's health claims, which in her opinion, "substantially" exceed the evidence presented. "It's impossible to conclude whether that reported [meth contamination] increase actually reflects a genuine change in contamination levels." But she said regardless, the health risk posed by it - an average rise of 1.93μg of meth per 100cm2 - was negligible. During the 2018 project, Bardsley said the team searched "high and low to try and find studies that would back a claim that there was a [health] risk from these low levels [of meth]". "They still don't exist." While it was "aggravating" to see the issue back in the media, she wasn't claiming meth contamination should be completely dismissed. "You want to clean up ... but there's certainly no big change at all. This recent study [by Irfan et al.] does not provide any evidence that we're suddenly in more danger." Authors accept conflict but reject criticism Irfan, who is a lecturer in data analystics and has a phD in economics, told RNZ he and his co-authors remained confident in their analysis. They pushed back on claims of cherry-picked evidence, saying the literature and reports cited were selected based on relevance. They also stood by the study methodology and maintained sufficient evidence exists linking adverse health effects to passive exposure to meth. However, they do not claim the increase in meth contamination identified in their study has a known or established health impact, Irfan said. "Our view is that this is an important area for further research." Regarding the conflict of interest, Irfan told RNZ that the study's second author, Ushan Goonawardane, was a Unitec student and unpaid intern at Safe and Healthy Home Solutions during the study's research phase. Safe and Healthy Home Solutions carries out meth contamination testing in homes. The company provided the data and the analysis was conducted in good faith, Irfan said. He said Goonawardane was subsequently employed by the company - after the research was completed. Goonawardane told RNZ he did not perceive a conflict of interest when the paper was submitted to the journal. However, he accepts now that he got it wrong. "Yes, I do admit that it was my mistake that I did not disclose it [at the time of submission]." NZMJ responds Editor in chief at the NZMJ, professor Frank Frizelle, said the authors of the Irfan et al. paper had apologised for their error and provided an updated conflict of interest statement. "[They] have also argued reasonably the areas of disagreement." He said the journal would publish the relevant correspondence on the matter in next week's edition, including the concerns raised, the response to them, and the updated conflict of interest statement. "I think this will allow the readers to see and better understand the issues and also provide transparency about the conflict of interest," Frizelle said, adding he expected the data interpretation issue could be ongoing.