Funding in the asbestos debate

Our plain-English summary of Funding in the asbestos debate, by S.W. Samuels (CMAJ, 1992).

The study

• Author: S.W. Samuels
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 1992;146(10):1697, 1700
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and reports no data. The author, a founder and former treasurer of Collegium Ramazzini, replied to letters by Dr. J. Bernard L. Gee and Dr. Keith Morgan about an asbestos editorial by Dr. David V. Bates. The author stated that the collegium's 1990 New York conference received a court grant from a fund controlled by a judge, which the author described as partial support from the plaintiffs' attorneys. Both that meeting and a 1988 Ottawa meeting were also supported by defendants' attorneys and press agents of Canada's Asbestos Institute. The author stated that the collegium's meetings are never funded entirely by one side. The author argued that Gee and the authorities Gee cites promote the social acceptability of unnecessary risks. The author concluded that banning substitutable asbestos is ethically justified public policy in any country where substitutes are available. The author called Canada's export of asbestos to countries where workers and the public are almost defenceless and there is no reasonable semblance of a regulatory infrastructure especially repugnant.

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 (opinion and clarification; no study)
• Exposure: No exposure was measured; the letter discusses asbestos policy in general, including banning substitutable asbestos and Canada's asbestos exports
• Main results:
  • The author stated that money for the 1990 New York conference was granted in a court from a fund controlled by a judge
  • The author stated that part of the conference's support came as a grant from the plaintiffs' attorneys
  • The author stated that both the Ottawa (1988) and New York meetings were also supported by defendants' attorneys and press agents of Canada's Asbestos Institute
  • The author stated that the collegium's meetings are never funded entirely by one set of partisans
  • The author stated that judges were specially invited to the New York meeting
  • The author argued that Gee and the authorities Gee cites promote the social acceptability of unnecessary risks
  • The author called Canada's export of asbestos to countries where workers and the public are almost defenceless and there is no reasonable semblance of a regulatory infrastructure especially repugnant
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that banning substitutable asbestos is ethically justified public policy in any country in which substitutes are available

Related studies

• Canadian asbestos: a global concern — L. Kazan-Allen (2004)
• Asbestos-related morbidity in India — T.K. Joshi, R.K. Gupta (2003)
• Asbestos dispatches — L. Kazan-Allen (2004)
• Collegium Ramazzini statement on the Tokyo Declaration banning asbestos — P.J. Landrigan, M. Soffritti (2005)
• The role of threshold limit values in U.S. air pollution policy — J.C. Robinson, D.G. Paxman (1992)
• WTO upholds French ban on chrysotile — L.K. Allen (2001)

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