Document NE8dOB9p0Evvkg9z3rkLbnVjw

June 13, 1969 Mr. Edward Gross Science Service, Inc. 1719 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Gross: I appreciate very much the maimer in which you received the comments and implied advice in my recent letter. Let me say in reply to your argument for the public discussion of controversial subjects that I do not disagree. I believe fully in the dissemination of information on any and all matters that are of concern to the public, and I consider the sound judgment of well informed laymen to have more weight than that of the involved scientist. What I must inveigh against is misinformation and misplaced emphasis on the several aspects of a controversy. Let me illustrate the point. In preparation for the presentation of a paper on a "Toxicological Appraisal of Lead" (in the air) I, who have worked in this field for many years, and am fairly well informed as to the details, as well as the major issues, spent almost three months in reviewing the published literature on tne subject during the past ten years (or thereabouts), making copious notes for my own purposes, before writing a line* I could not afford to omit anything of real significance that might well have escaped me while engaged in my own work. This is what is required to review a subject for the benefit of one's colleagues, many of whom are unfamiliar with the physiological facts and factors which enter into the consideration of such a matter. The professional writer, in his relation to the public and its interest, is responsible for carrying out a sufficiently searching examination of the facts and of the personalities concerned in a significant public issue to (1) appreciate fully his own limitations in the appraisal of the information; (2) to be able to avoid misstatements of fact; and to clarify the issues whether conclusions concerning them can be arrived at, or must be postponed. This, I believe, is good reporting. I do not agree that anything less than this is worthy of the attention of the lay reader. I am also reasonably confident that the truth in these matters will come out, if we (our society, its legislators, etc.) do not rush in to do something, before we learn the truth. I'll be interested in seeing your article, and I will comment on it, so far as I can, for your benefit. Sincerely yours, RAKjwp Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Occupational Medicine N5946 SCIEN CE SERVICE THE INSTITUTION EOR THE POPULARIZATION OF SCIEN CE organized 1921 as a non profit corporation, with trustees nominated by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the E. W . Scripps Estate and the Journalistic Profession. E. G. SHERBURNE, JR., DIRECTOR. 1719 N Street, N.W. W ASHIN GTON , D. C 20036 Telephone 667-2255 (Area Cod e 202) Cab le Address Sdenservc Dr. Robert A. Kehoe The Kettering Laboratory College of Medicine University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio June 9, 1969 Bear Dr. Kehoe: First off let me thank you for your letter. I greatly appreciate the pains you took to assist me in the article and was surprised and and flattered that you would devote so much time and effort to helping me. I was even tempted to put your by-line on the letter and rim it as the article. I still won't compare your word count and mine. HJT (there is always a but in life), I do not agree with you that the best way to handle a controversial subject is to say nothing about it-- even if that subject perforce must be treated superficially. I believe that the public and the scientific community have the right to be informed about the issue. Mot to inform them about its existence would be unfair. You seem to disparage lay writers discussing scientific matters. All I can say to that is that if scientists would communicate to the laymen on their terms then lay writers wouldn't have to. If these arguments fail to convince you about the righteousness of reporting the lead controversy, then I must fall back on the words of Socrates, who said 2,400 years ago: "1 gotta eat too, you know." At any rate, I have studiously considered your comments and incorp orated them into the article where I saw fit. I have also rechecked some of the things I have said with others in the field and acted accordingly. I have tried to be objective and fair as I could* I wish that I could comply with your desire not to be quoted, but to omit you would be like writing a book About the history of the American Revolution-- the one in 1776-- and not quote Patrick Henry, John Paul Jones & Company. I did drop one quote, however. Again,I sincerely want to thank you for all your trouble, and if the office follows its usual procedure and you receive a copy of the article, I await your letter to the editor with bared chest. Thank you. SSiinncceerreellyv,. - N5946.01 May 28, 1969 Mr. Edward Gross Science Service Inc. 1719 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Gross: ^ Let me begin this letter by saying that in my opinion this article should not be published. It is, of necessity, and through no serious fault of yours, a deplorably superficial coverage of the subject, which cannot contribute usefully to the sound judgment of the public or to that of the scientists of the country, to whom, presumably, it is mainly directed. In fact, as Z said to you on the telephone, the continued discussion of this subject in the press id other lay publications, can only add to the confusion which lately has surrounded this matter, and contributed to the apprehension of many persons. I do not suppose for a moment, however, that you or other writers would be dissuaded from writing about this subject, and therefore, Z will do what Z promised to do. Z do urge you, however, not to quote me or other persons in your article. Such statements as you have quoted from Dr. Patterson and myself, cannot possibly carry any weight with thoughtful people who do not knovT either of us, personally, or professionally, and therefore are irrelevant to the issues, while contributing some spurious dramatic character to the writing. Z started to write into the manuscript some modifications of your language. However, Z gave this up after the first page, because mere editorial changes here and there could not alter the incorrect slant of the statements. Instead, Z have commented, at some length, in a series of notations, separate from your manuscript. Tour acceptance of my views will take the zip out of your article, to be sure, but then there is no zip to this subject in its present state. The issue here is not one of polemics between individuals of different experience and different views, it is rather the unexciting collection of more evidence over such a period of time as may be required. It is possible that the concentration of lead in the common environment of man under a variety of Influences, may reach such a level as to be threatening. Methods are available for establishing the facts in this regard well in advance of any harmful effects, and there should be no reason for undue concern for the future. in saying this Z dp not minimize the importance of a careful professional surveillance of this and many another potential hazard to the public health as these are induced inevitably by the tremendous technological developments of our time* But I am sure that this cannot be done effectively if we are to be badgered continuously by every lay writer who has a yen to tell a story. What we need in this country in relation to our multitude of hygienic and social problems - not all of whlph are merely potential threats - is a great deal more of hard work and systematic observation, and more money (much of which at present is going down the military drain) for the support of such work, and a great deal less of talk and other forms of sound and fury. Incidentally, your left handed comment on the presumably biased source of some of the funds employed by the staff of the Kettering Laboratory has in itself a wholly misleading significance. When in 1930, the Kettering laboratory began its work of Mr. Edvard Gross Page 2 May 28, 1969 research, advisory service to industry, and, a little later, its graduate training of professional personnel in the field of industrial (occupational) medicine and hygiene, there was no source of funds other than those which ere supplied by industrial organizations whose interest in having an unbiased source of information and advice to which to apply, at the actual cost to themselves of the services which could be provided for them in a public educational institution under the policies set by its Board of Directors. The lead problems of industry, in relation to their own employees and also to the public, were subsidized by a group of industrial organizations involving the lead trades. The problems associated with the production and use of fluorides, including the aluminum manufacturers, were supported by this group, and so on until there were scores of organizations who participated in the support of the Kettering Laboratory (and in its various educational activities, under agreements made between their officials and the Board of Directors of the University of Cincinnati), under these policies, the work of the Laboratory (including the portion of it which Z directed in person) became known in this country and abroad. Do you not agree that your fragmentary remark is more than a little misleading? I recognize that you cannot record the history of this Laboratory and its policies in your paper, but need you question its integrity, as indeed you have done, if only inadvertently. This would be appropriate to a scandal sheet, but hardly to Science Service. . I trust you will not misinterpret my comments as being hostile. They are not so intended. As an elder scientific investigator and a physician long concerned with the public welfare, I am merely suggesting that it is high time that we, as members of a community, should take a serious and responsible view of our primary functions of leadership and guidance. Sincerely yours, RAKtwp Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Occupational Medicine