Science or public relations? The inside story of the Asbestosis Research Council, 1957-1990

Our plain-English summary of Science or public relations? The inside story of the Asbestosis Research Council, 1957-1990, by G. Tweedale (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2000).

The study

• Author: G. Tweedale
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2000;38(6):723-34
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

In 1957, the leading British asbestos companies (Turner & Newall, Cape Asbestos, and British Belting & Asbestos) founded the Asbestosis Research Council (ARC). This was a response to rising asbestosis and asbestos cancer mortality in the UK and the attendant political and social problems that threatened the existence of the asbestos industry. An ARC research program was launched, that by the 1970s was mainly based within the Institute of Occupational Medicine at Edinburgh University. By the end of the 1980s, well over a hundred papers had been published with ARC support. The bulk of the work involved animal experiments and the chemical analysis of fibers, but the asbestos companies showed little enthusiasm for wider epidemiological studies or for exploring the cancer threat. The sponsoring companies dictated the ARC's research strategy and also vetted (and sometimes censored) publications; while using the ARC as a counterweight to government regulation and media attacks. The ARC's history highlights the compromises that were made by individual scientists and demonstrates the dilemmas inherent in industry-controlled research.

Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

In plain English

This article was a historical commentary, not a medical study. The author used internal records of Turner & Newall, released through US litigation, to examine the Asbestosis Research Council (ARC). Turner & Newall, Cape Asbestos and British Belting & Asbestos set up the ARC in 1957, and it was wound up in 1990. Of 69 publications the ARC listed in 1976, well over 50 dealt with animal experiments and the chemical analysis of fibers. Seven dealt with dust counting and dust control, three touched on epidemiology, and two concerned the environmental impact of asbestos. The author reported that the research committee had no brief for epidemiology and that the companies' management committee kept control and vetted publications. In one case a researcher was told to delete all reference to glass dusts from a paper. The author also described the ARC's role in lobbying government and delaying new dust thresholds. The author concluded that the ARC was run by industrialists rather than scientists. The author added that it relied on scientists prepared occasionally to compromise their independence.

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 commentary based on internal company archive documents (minutes, memoranda, research reports) made public through US litigation
• Who was studied: The Asbestosis Research Council, a UK asbestos industry research body founded in 1957 by Turner & Newall, Cape Asbestos and British Belting & Asbestos, studied from its founding until it was wound up in 1990
• Exposure: No health exposure was measured. The subject was the asbestos research the industry sponsored, mainly animal experiments and chemical studies of fibers, including animal experiments with crocidolite (blue asbestos) rather than a major study of mesothelioma
• Main results:
  • Of the 69 publications listed in the ARC's 1976 submission to the Advisory Committee on Asbestos, well over 50 concerned animal experiments and chemical analysis of fibers. Seven looked at dust counting and dust control, three touched on epidemiology, and two concerned the environmental impact of asbestos
  • The ARC research committee had been given no brief for epidemiological work
  • A Turner Brothers Asbestos director wrote in 1969 that the aim was to keep control of the committee while appearing impartial
  • A paper by ARC researcher John Davis showing that glass fiber could produce tumours was held back, and Davis was told to delete all reference to glass dusts
  • In the mid-1970s the industry used science and the ARC to help delay new dust thresholds until 1982
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the ARC was run by industrialists rather than scientists. The author added that it depended on scientists who shared its outlook and were prepared occasionally to compromise their independence

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Turner & Newall, Cape Asbestos.

Related studies

• Corporate corruption of science-Another asbestos example — D. Egilman, R. Monárrez (2017)
• Reliance, Not Responsibility: Relations Between Science and Industry — H. Rodenberg (2019)
• The Medical Research Council Pneumoconiosis Research Unit, 1945-1985: a short history and tribute — J.E. Cotes (2000)
• Asbestos and disease - a public health success story? — B. Järvholm, A. Burdorf (2024)
• Multicenter randomized controlled trial of the management of unresectable malignant mesothelioma proposed by the British Thoracic Society and the British Medical Research Council — D.J. Girling, M.F. Muers, et al. (2002)
• Response to Hessel — D. Egilman (2017)

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