Scientific method questioned

Our plain-English summary of Scientific method questioned, by D.J. Paustenbach (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2006).

The study

• Author: D.J. Paustenbach
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2006;12(3):290-2; author reply 292-3
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was not a research study but a letter by Dennis J. Paustenbach of ChemRisk, with a reply from David S. Egilman and Susanna Rankin Bohme. The letter criticized a 2005 special issue guest edited by Dr. Egilman. The letter writer argued that the issue let authors legitimize often speculative, undocumented or incorrect views and better some authors' positions in future litigation. The letter argued that the papers could not have received proper peer review and objected to author biographies being printed at the back of the journal. It disputed two of Dr. Egilman's statements, arguing that much more than knowing of exposure is needed to prove causation. In reply, the authors stated that the letter named no factual or methodologic error and that they had followed disclosure and peer review policies. They asserted that brake work exposes workers to asbestos fibers and that more than 200 mesothelioma cases in brake mechanics have been published. They stated that Ford, GM and Chrysler paid the letter writer's consultant team about $23 million between 2001 and April 2006. No new epidemiologic or experimental study was reported.

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 with a reply from the special issue's authors (opinion exchange, not a study)
• Who was studied: No people were studied; the letter concerns the articles in a special issue of the journal (Sept-Dec 2005) guest edited by Dr. Egilman
• Exposure: The reply discusses asbestos exposure from brake work and mesothelioma in brake mechanics; no fiber type is named
• Main results:
  • The letter writer argued that the special issue let authors legitimize views that were often speculative, undocumented, or incorrect
  • The letter writer argued the issue was a backdoor method of bettering some authors' positions in future litigation
  • The letter writer stated the opinion that the papers could not have received proper peer review
  • The letter writer objected that acknowledgements or biographies were placed at the back of the journal
  • The letter writer disputed two statements by Dr. Egilman about causation, arguing that much more than knowing there is exposure is needed to prove causation
  • The reply authors stated that the letter did not name a single factual or methodologic error in the issue
  • The reply authors asserted that more than 200 cases of mesothelioma in brake mechanics have been published
  • The reply authors stated, citing court filings, that Ford, GM, and Chrysler jointly paid the letter writer's litigation consultant team about $23 million between 2001 and April 2006
  • The reply authors stated that they followed submission, disclosure, and peer review policies
• The authors' conclusion: The letter writer concluded that the special issue denigrated the reputation of scientific and medical publications; the reply authors in turn called the demand for job-specific epidemiology political and financial strategy masquerading as science

Related studies

• Fiber types, asbestos potency, and environmental causation: a peer review of published work and legal and regulatory scientific testimony — D. Egilman (2009)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)
• Asbestos: Socio-legal and Scientific Controversies and Unsound Science in the Context of the Worldwide Asbestos Tragedy - Lessons to be Learned — X. Baur (2016)
• Scientific controversy and asbestos: making disease invisible — L. Braun, A. Greene, et al. (2003)
• Differential peeky bias — D.S. Egilman, M.A. Billings (2006)
• The potential impact of epidemiology on the prevention of occupational disease — D.H. Wegman (1992)

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