UN Scientific Agency collaborating with scientists involved in sabotaging UN Rotterdam Convention

Our plain-English summary of UN Scientific Agency collaborating with scientists involved in sabotaging UN Rotterdam Convention, by K. Ruff (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2013).

The study

• Author: K. Ruff
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2013;19(3):160-2
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This article is a guest editorial, an opinion piece rather than a research study, and it reports no new data. The author criticized the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for appointing Dr. Evgeny Kovalevskiy and the Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (SRIOH) as collaborators in an IARC research project on workers at the Uralasbest chrysotile asbestos mine in Russia. The author argued that Dr. Kovalevskiy had misrepresented the findings of earlier Uralasbest research. According to the author, that earlier study did not include cancer incidence, and its workers' mean time since first exposure was 25 years, which the author called too short to estimate risks of long-latent asbestos-related diseases. The author stated that the IARC project is financed by the Russian Ministry of Health. The author also described Dr. Kovalevskiy, as a member of the Russian delegation, fighting at the May 2013 Rotterdam Convention meeting to defeat the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance. Citing other sources, the author reported that Russia exported 748 564 tons of asbestos in 2011. The author concluded that IARC's collaboration represented a betrayal of scientific integrity.

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: Guest editorial (opinion piece); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial concerns IARC's collaboration with Russian scientists on a research project at the Uralasbest mine, and the Russian delegation at the May 2013 Rotterdam Convention meeting.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos, discussed in relation to its proposed listing as a hazardous substance under the UN Rotterdam Convention
• Main results:
  • The author stated that IARC appointed Dr. Kovalevskiy and SRIOH as collaborators in an IARC research project on workers at the Uralasbest mine.
  • The author asserted that Dr. Kovalevskiy misrepresented the findings of earlier Uralasbest research.
  • According to the author, the earlier Uralasbest study did not include cancer incidence.
  • According to the author, the workers in the earlier Uralasbest study had a mean of 25 years since first exposure, which the author described as an insufficient latency period for reliable risk estimates.
  • The author stated that the IARC Uralasbest project is financed by the Russian Ministry of Health.
  • The author stated that Dr. Kovalevskiy, as a member of the Russian delegation at the May 2013 Rotterdam Convention conference, fought to defeat the listing of chrysotile asbestos.
  • Citing US Geological Survey data, the author reported that Russia exported 748 564 tons of asbestos in 2011.
  • Citing other sources, the author stated that chrysotile represents 95% of all asbestos traded over the past century.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that IARC's collaboration with this conduct represents a sad betrayal of scientific integrity and of the protection of public health in developing and middle income countries.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance — R. Collier (2008)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)
• Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies — D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, et al. (2003)
• Asbestos-related cancer and the amphibole hypothesis. The hypothesis is still supported by scientists and scientific data — B.T. Mossman, J.B. Gee (1997)
• South Africa's export trade in asbestos: demise of an industry — J.S. Harington, N.D. McGlashan, et al. (2010)

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