Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy, by J.C. Kelso (British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1992).

The study

• Author: J.C. Kelso
• Journal: British Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1992;49(7):526
• Type of article: Comment, Historical article, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004133).

In plain English

This item was a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no new data. It was signed by J C Kelso of James Hardie Industries Ltd, Sydney, Australia. It responded to an earlier article by Weller in the same journal on the history of asbestos and cancer, and disputed Weller's account of what was known in the 1960s. In support, the author quoted Lee and Selikoff, writing in 1978. They said that by the 1960s the essential evidence had been reported but not yet assembled or given enough credibility to be entirely convincing. The author also cited Enterline as recording that in the early 1960s some medical opinion and reputable journals were not convinced of a link between asbestos and the cancers. Weller had concluded that industrialists hazarded men's lives for commercial gain and suppressed research findings. The author said these conclusions were not reasonable from the evidence Weller presented. The author concluded that a lack of universal agreement in the medical profession more likely explained a slow response by industrialists to the growing evidence.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Letter to the editor (correspondence section); an argument about history, with no new data
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter was written by J C Kelso of James Hardie Industries Ltd, Sydney, Australia, in response to an article by Weller in the same journal (1992;49:70-2)
• Exposure: Asbestos in general. The letter discussed the state of scientific knowledge in the 1960s about asbestos and cancer. No fiber types, products, jobs or doses were studied
• Main results:
  • Argument, not a research finding: the author quoted Lee and Selikoff (1978), who wrote that by the 1960s the essential evidence had been reported but was not yet convincing
  • Argument: the author said that, given the unsettled medical debate in 1964, many industrialists could have been found who doubted any link between asbestos and the cancers
  • Argument: the author cited Enterline as recording that in the early 1960s some medical opinion and reputable journals were not convinced of the link
  • Argument: the author rejected Weller's conclusions that industrialists hazarded men's lives for commercial gain and suppressed research findings
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that a lack of universal agreement in the medical profession more likely caused a slow response by industrialists to the growing evidence

Related studies

• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — M.P. Weller (1993)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — M. Greenberg (1993)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — B.I. Castleman (1991)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — W.K. Morgan (1992)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — M.P. Weller (1992)
• Asbestos: scientific developments and implications for public policy — B.T. Mossman, J. Bignon, et al. (1990)

Browse more research in British Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.