Re: "Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965"

Our plain-English summary of Re: "Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965", by D.O. Hourihane (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1992).

The study

• Author: D.O. Hourihane
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1992;22(2):275-7
• Type of article: Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a commentary, not a new study. The author, from Trinity College, Dublin, responded to Philip Enterline's 1991 review of opinion on asbestos and lung cancer from 1934 to 1965. The author agreed that the Second World War led German and western scientists to ignore each other's publications. But the author called the emphasis on the war "ingenuous": German papers disputing the link were still published in 1955 and 1956, and western, especially American, knowledge of non-English journals had never been impressive. The author suggested other reasons for the delay. Britain had factory inspectors, such as Gloyne and Merewether, who collected statistics, and the author knew of no comparable system in the United States. The author believed the asbestos industry must have had some effect. The author argued that negative findings may be found flimsy on detailed examination, citing a 1952 Cartier reference that turned out to be a discussion contribution. The author called the time taken to accept the link between asbestos exposure and lung cancer unconscionable: 18 years on the shortest count and 29 years on the longest.

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: Commentary (letter responding to a published review); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The commentary discusses Enterline's 1991 review of the literature on asbestos and cancer from 1934 to 1965.
• Exposure: Asbestos exposure and asbestosis in relation to lung cancer; no fiber types are named
• Main results:
  • The author agreed the war encouraged mutual ignorance between German and western scientists, but considered the emphasis on the war ingenuous, because German papers disclaiming the association were still published in 1955 and 1956.
  • The author noted that Gloyne and Merewether, who drew attention to asbestosis and lung cancer, were doctors in the British Inspectorate of Factories. As far as the author was aware, no comparable post or system existed in the United States.
  • The author believed the asbestos industry must have played some part in delaying acceptance of the association.
  • The author argued that negative findings, when examined in detail, may turn out to be flimsy. As an example, the reference to Cartier in 1952 was in fact a contribution to a discussion of another author's presentation.
  • The author stated that few authors allowed for smoking histories. The author believed this was first done by Selikoff et al. in 1968, where lung cancer incidence remained high after allowing for smoking.
  • The author stated, without citing a specific source, that in autopsies of patients classified as having asbestosis before death, 70-80% had died from a malignant condition, most commonly lung cancer.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the time taken for the medical community to accept the link between asbestos exposure and lung cancer was unconscionable (18 years on the shortest count, 29 years on the longest). The author hoped that improved international communication would prevent a repeat.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — J.E. Craighead (1992)
• Re: "Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — S. Langård (1992)
• Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965 — P.E. Enterline (1991)
• Re: Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer, 1937-1965 — D.J. Kilpatrick, M. Kottek (1994)
• Re: Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer, 1934-1965 — J.M. Harrington (1993)
• Re: Historical reasons for attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer, 1934-1965 — M. Corn, J.K. Corn (1993)

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