Biological effects of asbestos: New York Academy of Sciences 1964

Our plain-English summary of Biological effects of asbestos: New York Academy of Sciences 1964, by M. Greenberg (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2003;43(5):543-52
• Type of article: Historical article
• Cited by: 9 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Background: In 1964, the New York Academy of Sciences held a conference on asbestos that was to promote the slow decline in the fortunes of asbestos. It brought together a Who's Who of international scientists who had conducted and reported on experimental and human studies of the effects of asbestos. Very little new data were presented at the conference, but by bringing together a compendium of knowledge of the adverse effects of asbestos, it served further notice to asbestos-using industry of the major public health problem that they had created. With the assistance of its employees and certain scientists, industry mounted public relations exercises to counter the adverse publicity of lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. Attempts were made to minimize the impact of these diseases by suggesting that their alleged associations with asbestos were spurious, and by diversionary ad hominem attacks on Professor Irving J. Selikoff who had played an important role in the organization of the conference.

Methods: Consideration of the contents of the meeting program, other previously published information and documents revealed through legal discovery by Chase Manhattan Bank provide the sources on which this paper is based.

Conclusions: Today, asbestos is no longer seen as a material indispensable on technical grounds and a mainstay of industry and the economy. Its progressive banning in developed countries may be seen as the consequence of the momentum initiated in New York in 1964.

Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

In plain English

In this historical review, the author examined the 1964 New York Academy of Sciences conference on the biological effects of asbestos. The sources were the conference program and proceedings, earlier publications, and industry documents obtained through legal discovery by Chase Manhattan Bank. The author reported that the conference added little new knowledge about asbestos diseases but raised their profile. Minutes of an Asbestos Textile Institute committee showed concern about how the conference results could be "investigated and rebutted" and a proposal to use a public relations man. Lawyers retained by industry apparently never sent a complaint letter they had drafted to Irving Selikoff. Instead they made threats to the Academy's Executive Director, who refused to be intimidated. At the conference, a company medical officer protested the press releases, and Dr. John Gilson supported the protest. The final speakers, Wagner and Gilson, expressed no doubt that asbestos was causally linked to malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer. The author concluded that the progressive banning of asbestos in developed countries may be seen as a consequence of the momentum begun in 1964.

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: historical review (historical perspective) based on the conference program and proceedings, previously published literature, and documents obtained through legal discovery
• Who was studied: the 1964 New York Academy of Sciences conference on the biological effects of asbestos, its participants and published proceedings, and responses by asbestos industry bodies and companies in the US and UK
• Exposure: asbestos in general, and the evidence linking it to asbestosis, lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma
• Main results:
  • The author reported that the conference added little new knowledge of asbestos and its diseases but raised their profile.
  • Minutes of the Asbestos Textile Institute's Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee recorded concern about how the conference results could be investigated and rebutted. The committee agreed that a public relations man would be the quickest way to get publicity to the public.
  • Attorneys retained by industry seem never to have sent Selikoff the letter they had drafted. Instead, on 26 October 1964, they made threats to the Executive Director of the New York Academy of Sciences.
  • Dr. Smither, the medical officer of Cape Asbestos Company, read a statement at the conference protesting the press releases. According to a Turner and Newall executive's report, Dr. Gilson associated himself with the statement.
  • The final speakers, Wagner and Gilson, expressed no doubt about the causal associations between asbestos, malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer. They considered it still necessary to resolve whether asbestosis was a necessary precursor for lung cancer, and whether any one variety of asbestos was particularly involved.
  • After the conference, 45 of the experts present met under the International Union Against Cancer to make recommendations. Proposals that came to fruition included a stock of standard asbestos dusts and a set of standard chest radiographs.
  • In America, asbestos consumption remained high for a further 10 years after the conference.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that asbestos is no longer seen as indispensable, and that its progressive banning in developed countries may be seen as a consequence of the momentum initiated at the 1964 New York conference.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Notice, Lung Cancer, Mesothelioma, Discovery.

Related studies

• Mortality among talc miners and millers in New York State — M. Kleinfeld, J. Messite, et al. (1967)
• Malignant mesothelioma incidence among talc miners and millers in New York State — M.M. Finkelstein (2012)
• A mortality study of a research, engineering, and metal fabrication facility in western New York State — M.J. Teta, M.G. Ott (1988)
• Cancer incidence and asbestos in drinking water, Town of Woodstock, New York, 1980-1998 — M.L. Browne, D. Varadarajulu, et al. (2005)
• Exposure to asbestiform minerals and radiographic chest abnormalities in a talc mining region of upstate New York — E.F. Fitzgerald, A.D. Stark, et al. (1991)
• Asbestos in New York City public school buildings--public policy: is there a scientific basis? — R. Wilson, A.M. Langer, et al. (1994)

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