Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy, by K. Morgan (CMAJ, 1992).

The study

• Author: K. Morgan
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 1992;147(7):988-9
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study. It reports no data, patients or measurements. The author, of the Chest Diseases Unit, University Hospital, London, Ontario, replied to an earlier letter by Sheldon W. Samuels (Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 1697, 1700), calling it "a trifle too disingenuous." The author disputed Samuels' description of the 1990 New York Collegium Ramazzini meeting on asbestos as scientifically impartial. The author asked why attendees named as expert witnesses in impending litigation were banned by Judge J.M. Kelly from appearing in court. The author also asked why Dr. Corbett MacDonald was not invited despite requests from three invited attendees. The author stated that information about donations from plaintiffs' lawyers came from a medical colleague, not a defendant's lawyer. The letter called asbestos a mineral that, if used with care, is still useful. It noted that Samuels did not mention US government sales of subsidized tobacco to Southeast Asian countries. These are the letter's assertions, not tested findings. The page also shows the start of a reply, labelled only as the author's response, which is cut off.

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) replying to an earlier letter; not a research study
• Exposure: Asbestos in general. The letter discussed asbestos science, litigation and policy, not any fiber type, product or measured exposure.
• Main results:
  • The letter asserted that attendees of the 1990 meeting who had been named as expert witnesses in impending litigation were banned by Judge J.M. Kelly from appearing in court.
  • The letter asserted that Dr. Corbett MacDonald was not invited to the meeting despite the request of three invited attendees.
  • The author stated that the information about donations from plaintiffs' lawyers came from a medical colleague, not from a defendant's lawyer.
  • The letter noted that Samuels did not mention that the US government sells subsidized tobacco to Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries.
  • The start of a reply, labelled only as the author's response and printed on the same page, called Dr. Morgan a spokesman for the asbestos cartel. The reply is cut off.
• The authors' conclusion: The author argued that Samuels' earlier letter was a trifle too disingenuous about the impartiality of the 1990 Collegium Ramazzini asbestos meeting.

Related studies

• Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy — J.B. Gee (1992)
• Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy — D.V. Bates (1991)
• Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy — K. Morgan (1992)
• Asbestos: the turbulent interface between science and policy — K. Morgan (1991)
• Asbestos as a public health risk: disease and policy — H. Weill, J.M. Hughes (1986)
• Rural public health policy models to address an evolving environmental asbestos disaster — S.W. Kuntz, C.A. Winters, et al. (2009)

Browse more research in CMAJ, or return to medical research.