Literature Review
2007
In the paper: The Rochdale Asbestos Cancer Studies and the Politics of Epidemiology: What You See Depends on Where You Sit, Dr. Geoffrey Tweedale writes:
“Epidemiology, often regarded as a neutral science, is susceptible to socio-political influences…It is a conceit of epidemiology that it offers scientific precision… (this) science can look like diplomacy, in which vested interests try to defend their corner and the epidemiologist attempts (while dependent upon company data) to publicize unwelcome facts.”1
Incidents relating to the work of Sir Richard Doll and Julian Peto are examined at some length including a controversial presentation made by Peto at Manchester University in November 2005.
2006
Published jointly by the Trades Union Congress and the Health and Safety Executive in December 2006, The Control of Asbestos - A Guide for Safety Representativesprovides useful background material on the nature and uses of asbestos and who is at risk, while also explaining the changes brought in by revamped regulations such as the:
lower control limit of 0.1 fibers per millilitre of air measured over four hours;
new stipulations that require employers to acquire licenses for work undertaken by their own workforce;
need for suitable training for anyone who is or may be exposed to asbestos.2
Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research by Lennart Hardell, Martin Walker, Bo Walhjalt, Lee Friedman and Elihu Richter appeared in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2006. This paper reported links between academics in Sweden, the UK and the U.S. and tobacco (Philip Morris) and chemical companies (Monsanto). During his research on vinyl chloride in the mid-1980s, Professor Sir Richard Doll received payments from the Chemical Manufacturers Association, whose corporate members (ICI and Dow) produced vinyl chloride and consultancy funding from Monsanto; none of this funding was declared by Doll in the paper Effects of Exposure to Vinyl Chloride which was published in 1988. The authors of the 2006 paper are calling for: “improved transparency (and) regulations that will help curb abuses as well as instruments for control and enforcement against abuses.”
In the paper, Saving the Asbestos Industry 1960 to 2006 Dr. Jock McCulloch exposes the corporate machinations devised by vested interests to preserve valuable markets for chrysotile asbestos.3 The industry's strategy included funding of influential researchers and academics whose published papers and public comments would cause confusion over the hazards posed by asbestos use.
In 1979 Dr. Chris Wagner believed that all types of asbestos caused mesothelioma; he also believed that low levels of exposure to Canadian chrysotile caused mesothelioma. McCulloch notes:
“Ironically, as evidence linking chrysotile to mesothelioma continued to accumulate, Wagner changed his mind. In may 1990, Wagner testified in a court case involving the U.S. conglomerate Raymark, formerly Raybestos-Manhattan. Under oath he endorsed the three pillars of the industry position on mesothelioma: the disease is always dose related, even heavy exposure to chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma, and 20% of mesotheliomas are not caused by asbestos. He also disputed the toxicity of amosite. Under cross examination, Wagner admitted to providing monthly reviews of the current literature to a lawyer named Shaw, but he could not remember how much he was being paid for his services…”
Some years later, Mr. Shaw revealed that Owens-Illinois (O-I), a U.S. asbestos defendant, had been paying Wagner $6,000/month “for some period of time irrespective of whether Dr. Wagner did any work for O-I”:
“beginning in 1986 O-I made regular payments to Wagner through its legal firm Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough. The documents also reveal that the arrangement continued for more than 15 years and in total Wagner probably received in excess of $300,000. That income compares to the £30,000 per year salary typical for medical researchers in the UK at that time. Neither Wagner nor O-I ever acknowledged Wagner's employment at the numerous conferences Wagner attended during the period his association with the company remained secret. It was an association he even denied under oath. It is equally significant that Wagner's stance on chrysotile shifted at a time when the evidence linking all types of asbestos to mesothelioma had become overwhelming.”
February 25, 2007
_______
1 Tweedale G. The Rochdale Asbestos Cancer Studies and the Politics of Epidemiology: What You See Depends on Where You Sit. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2007;13:70-79.
2 http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/repsguide.pdf
3 McCulloch J. Saving the Asbestos Industry 1960 to 2006. Public Health Reports 2006; Volume 121; 609-614.
