The importance of scientific debate

Our plain-English summary of The importance of scientific debate, by D.S. Egilman (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2013).

The study

• Author: D.S. Egilman
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2013;19(3):157-9
• Type of article: Editorial, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was an editorial, not a research study, and it reported no new data. The author, the journal's editor in chief, described how the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology refused to publish a letter, written by the author and a co-author, that critiqued a 2012 review by Donovan et al. on take-home (para-occupational) asbestos exposure and disease. The letter was instead published in the author's own journal. The author argued several points. One was that the Donovan et al. review was tied to litigation. Another was that household exposures, never measured by asbestos companies, could not be used to estimate potency or dose-response. A third was that Donovan et al. relied on unpublished corporate documents even though the editor objected to the letter's use of such documents. The author also disputed a 1000-word limit on the letter, noting that the journal had published a letter of over 1500 words. The author concluded that limiting critical comments on arbitrary criteria restricts scientific dialog. The author disclosed serving as an expert witness for plaintiffs and defendants in asbestos litigation.

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: editorial (opinion piece); no study was conducted
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial concerns a letter by the author and co-author Nicholas Druar critiquing a 2012 review by Donovan et al. published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology.
• Exposure: The subject of the critiqued review: take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease
• Main results:
  • The editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology refused to publish the letter and its revisions. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health published it in the same issue as a Special Contribution.
  • The author argued that the Donovan et al. article begins and ends with references to litigation.
  • The author argued that household exposures cannot be used to estimate potency or dose-response relationships.
  • The author argued that Donovan et al. relied on unpublished corporate documents, so the editor's objection to the letter's use of non-peer-reviewed corporate documents was inconsistent.
  • The author could find no 1000-word requirement for letters and noted that at least one letter published by the journal was over 1500 words.
  • The author disclosed serving as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in asbestos-related litigation.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that limiting the publication of critical comments on arbitrary criteria unnecessarily restricts scientific dialog, and that editors should encourage critique of the research they publish.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Commentary on 'evaluation of take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease: a review of the literature', Donovan et al.1 — D.S. Egilman, N.M. Druar (2013)
• A review of scientific literature examining the mining history, geology, mineralogy, and amphibole asbestos health effects of the Rainy Creek igneous complex, Libby, Montana, USA — B.R. Bandli, M.E. Gunter (2006)
• Evaluation of take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease: a review of the literature — E.P. Donovan, B.L. Donovan, et al. (2012)
• Misleading "New Insights into the Chrysotile Debate" — H.J. Woitowitz, X. Baur (2018)
• The morbidity and mortality of vermiculite miners and millers exposed to tremolite-actinolite: Part I. Exposure estimates — H.E. Amandus, R. Wheeler, et al. (1987)
• Asbestos-related cancer and the amphibole hypothesis. The hypothesis is still supported by scientists and scientific data — B.T. Mossman, J.B. Gee (1997)

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