Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965"

Our plain-English summary of Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965", by R. Ehrlich, J. Myers (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1992).

The study

• Authors: R. Ehrlich, J. Myers
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1992;22(2):279-80
• Type of article: Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a short commentary, not a research study, by two authors from the University of Cape Town Medical School, South Africa. It responded to Philip Enterline's 1991 article on why acceptance of the association between asbestos and cancer was delayed, and it reported no new data. The authors argued that Enterline relied mainly on textual analysis of the scientific literature, giving too little weight to economic and political factors at work when a major industry is threatened, and too much to hindsight. Citing other published works, they stated that the asbestos industry's role in financing research and suppressing some of its findings is a matter of public record. They described two lags: from early reports of a possible harmful link to acceptance by scientists, and from that consensus to regulation. They suggested a paradox: the more common a harmful substance's use, the greater the obstacles to identifying and remedying the hazard may be. The authors concluded that, contrary to Enterline, acceptance of similar associations may well face similar delays in the future.

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-style response to a previously published article); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The commentary responds to Philip Enterline's 1991 article in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine on the delayed acceptance of the asbestos-cancer association, 1934-1965. The authors were from the Department of Community Health, University of Cape Town Medical School, South Africa.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general (no fiber types named). The commentary concerns the history of how knowledge about asbestos and cancer emerged, not a measured exposure.
• Main results:
  • The authors argued that Enterline's article gave too little weight to economic and political factors when a major industry is threatened, and too much to hindsight.
  • The authors stated, citing Castleman (1984) and Lilienfeld (1991), that the asbestos industry's role in financing research and suppressing some findings is a matter of public record.
  • The authors described two historical lags: from the earliest accounts of a possible adverse link to acceptance by scientists, and from that consensus to social regulation.
  • The authors suggested a paradox: the more common the use of a harmful substance, the greater the obstacles to identifying and remedying the hazard may be.
  • The authors stated that Enterline's conclusion, that similar associations are unlikely to be missed for long in the future, is not supported by Enterline's own analysis.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded, opposite to Enterline, that acceptance of similar associations may well be subject to similar delays in the future.

Related studies

• Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — J. Keane (1992)
• Re: "Changing opinions and attitudes regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — G. Berry (1992)
• Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965 — P.E. Enterline (1991)
• Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — J.E. Craighead (1992)
• Re: "Changing attitudes and opinions: asbestos and cancer 1934-1965" — G.W. Schepers (1992)
• Re: Attitudes and opinions regarding asbestos and cancer, 1937-1965 — D.J. Kilpatrick, M. Kottek (1994)

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