How the asbestos industry turns to UK-based scientists

UK-based scientists are playing a prominent role in promoting the continued use of asbestos around the world, according to a new investigative report.

Friendly fibre? notes that while Britain has the highest death rates from asbestos cancers in the world, it is also home to some of the industry’s more turned-to experts. It alleges these have shown a ‘remarkable willingness’ to defend chrysotile, the most common and last remaining form of asbestos in commercial use.

The report, published in the latest edition of Hazards magazine, presents evidence of UK-based scientists authoring scientific papers claiming chrysotile is safe or playing down the risks without declaring their links to the asbestos industry.

Named in the report are Fred Pooley, an emeritus professor at the University of Cardiff, Allen Gibbs, an NHS pathologist from the University of Wales College of Medicine, Ken Donaldson, a particle toxicologist with a long association with the Institute of Occupational Medicine and Royal Society of Chemistry fellow John Hoskins.

Hoskins’ recent activities have also included presentations at International Chrysotile Association (ICA) promotional seminars in India and Vietnam (pictured in a related TV interview, below). Hoskins and Gibbs were also among the authors of ‘Chrysotile revisited’, an ICA-funded defence of chrysotile.

This was used by the industry in its successful campaign to block tighter global rules on chrysotile exports and to defeat planned national bans, including an officially proposed prohibition in Pakistan.

The Hazards report notes: “Supporting those selling chrysotile asbestos in the developing world isn’t a crime. Neither is producing industry-sponsored research to order. Nor is authoring papers that defy the ‘overwhelming’ scientific opinion on a carcinogen like chrysotile. But neglecting to mention those industry affiliations is a big deal. So is producing science that omits inconvenient evidence and that crosses over from plain scientific fact into clear product defence.”

It concludes: “Maybe, just maybe, in the face of what is already the largest industry-created health catastrophe in history, there’s a reason to wonder if this combination of commissions and omissions really does cross the line.”