Expression of concern: false claim to be free of conflicts in asbestos biopersistence debate

Our plain-English summary of Expression of concern: false claim to be free of conflicts in asbestos biopersistence debate, by S.R. Bohme (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2012).

The study

• Author: S.R. Bohme
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2012;18(2):85-8
• Type of article: Letter
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

In this Expression of Concern, the Deputy Editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) examined a January 2011 letter by Drs. Kenneth Donaldson and Gunter Oberdörster. That letter had responded to a 2009 article by Henri Pezerat criticising chrysotile asbestos biopersistence studies by Dr. David Bernstein. Its authors had stated that they were not allied to, or funded by, any asbestos manufacturer or pro-asbestos group. The author drew on documents produced in the New York City Asbestos Litigation, including a deposition of Georgia-Pacific (GP) toxicologist Stewart Holm, emails and expert witness designations. She reported that Donaldson had consulted for GP, a former maker of asbestos-containing joint compound, from 2006 to at least 2010. Holm estimated that payment at about $6000. She also reported that GP listed Donaldson as an expert witness and that he co-authored three GP-funded biopersistence papers with Bernstein. The emails indicated that Bernstein, who was not named as an author, supplied information for the letter, wrote that he had 'reworded' it, and forwarded the correspondence to Holm. Donaldson replied that the opinions in the letter were his and Oberdörster's and that Bernstein was not a ghost writer. He apologised for not declaring his GP involvements. The author concluded that the denial of conflicts was a misrepresentation that violated journal policy, ICMJE guidelines and ethical norms. She called on those involved to complete the record.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This is not a research study. It is an Expression of Concern by the journal's Deputy Editor about a letter the journal published in January 2011. In that letter, Kenneth Donaldson and Gunter Oberdörster defended Dr. David Bernstein's studies of chrysotile asbestos biopersistence against a critique by Henri Pezerat. They also stated that they were not allied to, or funded by, the asbestos industry. Citing documents from the New York City Asbestos Litigation, the author reported that Dr. Donaldson had consulted for Georgia Pacific, a former maker of asbestos-containing joint compound, from 2006 to at least 2010. Georgia Pacific listed Dr. Donaldson as an expert witness, and three Georgia Pacific-funded papers co-authored by Dr. Donaldson were first published without conflict disclosures. According to the author, emails showed that Dr. Bernstein reworded the letter and forwarded related emails to Georgia Pacific. In reply, Dr. Donaldson stated that Dr. Bernstein did not originate or influence the letter's message, but apologized for not declaring the involvements. The author concluded that falsely claiming freedom from conflicts harms readers and researchers and violates publishing standards.

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: Journal editorial (Expression of Concern) about undisclosed conflicts of interest and authorship in a published letter; not a research study
• Who was studied: The authors of a letter published in the journal in January 2011 (Drs. Kenneth Donaldson and Gunter Oberdörster), and their links to Dr. David Bernstein and Georgia Pacific
• Exposure: No exposure was studied. The subject is the scientific debate over the biopersistence of chrysotile asbestos (how long the fibers persist in the lung) in studies by Dr. Bernstein.
• Main results:
  • The published letter by Donaldson and Oberdörster stated that the authors had no asbestos industry ties or funding
  • The author reported that Dr. Donaldson consulted for Georgia Pacific from 2006 to at least 2010
  • In a deposition, Georgia Pacific toxicologist Stuart Holm estimated that Dr. Donaldson had been paid about $6000 by Georgia Pacific
  • A Georgia Pacific expert witness designation filed in February 2011 stated that Dr. Donaldson would testify that short fiber chrysotile is not a potent cause of disease in humans and, at low doses, would not be expected to cause disease, including mesothelioma
  • Three papers co-authored by Dr. Donaldson as part of Georgia Pacific-funded research were initially published without disclosure of the authors' conflicts
  • In an email, Dr. Bernstein wrote that he had reworded the letter
  • Dr. Bernstein forwarded the letter-related emails to Holm at Georgia Pacific. It is unclear whether Donaldson and Oberdörster knew this.
  • Dr. Donaldson responded that Dr. Bernstein did not originate or influence the letter's message
  • Dr. Donaldson also apologized for not declaring the involvements
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that falsely claiming to be free of conflicts harms readers and researchers and violates written and unwritten standards of scientific publishing
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the materials do not reveal the extent of Dr. Bernstein's authorship
  • The author stated that it cannot be known whether a draft letter listed in a Georgia Pacific privilege log was a draft of the letter submitted to the journal

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: biopersistence, Chrysotile, Deposition, Expert Witness, Joint Compound.

Related studies

• Chrysotile biopersistence in the lungs of persons in the general population and exposed workers — A.M. Langer, R.P. Nolan (1994)
• Continued controversy on chrysotile biopersistence — K. Donaldson, G. Oberdörster (2011)
• Pleural mesothelioma in New Caledonia: an acute environmental concern — F. Baumann, Y. Rougier, et al. (2007)
• Chrysotile biopersistence: the misuse of biased studies — H. Pezerat (2009)
• The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate — I.S. Feder, I. Tischoff, et al. (2017)
• Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate" — I.S. Feder, I. Tischoff, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.