User:Paulwhaley

I'm a chemicals policy communications consultant with specialist knowledge of emerging research into how chemicals affect health, chemicals policy, issues around how science is interpreted into chemicals policy, and the organisations working in the policy arena.

Conflict of interest

I have been commissioned to write two articles by an organisation which is the subject of one of the articles in question, and a project they have developed which is the subject of the other. They also pay me for other work. This is a clear COI both for the immediate project, but also the broader context of continuing to work with them in future.

I accepted the commission mainly because, if I didn't do it, nobody else would otherwise write about an organisation with a relatively significant role in chemicals policy (currently under-served in Wikipedia) and whose work provides some insight into the relationship between legislature and NGOs with a relatively low public profile.

Although chemicals is a niche issue in EU policy, ChemSec have been responsible for some significant reports and campaign innovations (particularly the SIN List) and are playing an important ongoing role in promoting environmental business interests in legislation.

I am satisfied that I have written the piece in a sufficiently neutral way. That said, I have some concerns about some of the vocabulary - I used the term "advocate" instead of "lobby", as to say one is involved in lobbying has commercial overtones in the NGO sector, particularly among non-native English speakers. Striking the balance between fair representation of their work and allowing for language differences was challenging and I confess that in this circumstance I don't know which term to use. I daresay there could also be more about funding, but this is in documentation on their website and is the only source of information about this I have been able to find.