Document NGqxwv4bgMb2vqeXQVq5d6qrV

ii n bfadck^h dfcldNSON UNIVERSITY RobImm - mmSsom )n o/94 OoJIlMIM hbruuy 27, 1979 Dennis B. Markusson. Esq. legal Departaent Johns-Kanvi1la Ken-Caryl Ranch Danvar, Co}. 90217 ft > - ' * l *; ,4 s'* jf%>. & Daar Danny: W uw As you know, X was subpoanaad by plaintiff in Jackson vs J-M for a deposition last Moveaber. X have now had a phone call from Xvan Rubin, foraarly a aineralogist with Selikoff's group. Mr. Rubin said that ha is now an.attorney with Xrendler a Krendler in Maw York, that they represent a plaintiff in the "Groton - General Dynaalcs cases" and intend to subpoena ns for a deposition to explore events W at Mew York University in the 1950s. Xn both instances, interest setne to attach to testimony X gave to a congressional cc--1 ttee in 1957 expressing ay view that Dr. A. J. Laasa had obstructed research on occupational factors in cancer by ayself. Dr. vorwald and Dr. Bueper. Details in that natter were presented in a 19S5 letter in which z requested a bearing at MYU. that hearing was not granted on grounds that Z had not attained tenure. Subsequently in 19S5, oopies of that letter were aaong notarial given ter as and others to officers of several ooapanies and labor unions to seek support for continuation of work initiated by a eoaaittee to study environaental factors in eanoer (Cancer prevention Connittee). Since the cited 1955 letter was faniliar to a nuaber of people, it nay cos* up in the present. Nr. Gross has a copy. - Sines replies to a scatter of questions at a deposition nay be confused and confusing, z have tried to suaaarise the above natters as z saw than in ay enclosed letter of the 23rd to Mr. Gross, let m invite attention to its last page. Also to its page 2, which quotes froa an authoritative 195C book in which evidence for a causal role of asbestos in lung eanoer was found insufficient at that tine. PLAINTIFF'S! Sinoerely |Br' S933;! Mr. D.R. Gross Gillian S. faith, M.D. Director Health Research Institute fAinUkfh dldUNSON UMivERsrry BorIuM - MAdttON CAMf>t* David R. Cross, Esq. Ludd. Larner, Kent, Gross, Pici 33 Washington Strsst Newark, NJ 07102 Dsar Mr. Gross> At a deposition on 21th of last November in your office, Mr. Thomas Henderson asked me questions about the state of knowledge of health effects of asbestos in the 19S0s. Z have not received a transcript of that deposition, but Z write now to clarify and to offer additional material that 2 believe is pertinent to it. Following this deposition, Mr. Henderson requested material that Z supplied with my enclosed letter of January 18 to him. That letter describes tests that Z carried out in 1950-51 for carcinogenicity of three preparations of asbestos in mice. The negative results of those tests and of animal tests by others did not suggest a high priority for further experimental work on carcinogenicity of asbestos at that time. At or about that time, as you know, there were reports of cases of co-existing asbestosis and cancer of the lungs. This subject was discussed in my report to Cancer Prevention Committee (A Survey of Some Current British and European Studies of Occupational Tumor Problems, A.M.A. Arch, industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine 5*242-263, 1952). Subsequent to that report. Or. John Knox, then medical officer for a manu facturer of asbestos products in England, advised me of additional such cases by letter in 1954, which were subsequently published (Doll, R., British Journ, Industrial Medicine 12iS1-I6, 1955). 1 discussed my 1952 report. Dr. Knox's 1954 letter and Dr. Doll's 1955 report with the then chairman of Cancer Prevention Committee, Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond, who was then as now in charge of statistical studies for American Cancer Society. Dr. Hammond's conclusions from these and other data were stated as follows in a chapter titled "Environmental and Occupational Factors in the Development of Lung Cancer* that he and Dr. Millard Machle contributed to a book titled PULHOtiAXY CARCINOMA published by New York University Press in 1954. floduw MsdhoMWfftofbMrf/ww^*TtAWck-lMdie5Acivigw jatsey r9t 2 Quota from Hammond and Naehla (1956) i "Thara is vei good avidanca that uranium and its products, chromate#JHVichol, and cartain hydrocarbons ara rasponslbla for tha <MOdMd|^B of lung cancar in a few limitad instancas involvin^m^Re engaged in spacific industrial oparations. A number'^tiKner substances hava baan suspactad as causing lung eantfjM^industrial workers (e.g. arsenic, asbestos, barylliuaf^lMffsr agents cap^bla of producing pneumoconiosis), but gpinion^ for their causal role is insufficiei r The full title of the cited 1956 booMHs PULMONARY CARCINOMA PATHOGENESIS, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT. I^fcs edited by Edgar Kayer and Herbert C. Maiar and contained contributions by 18 individuals. I contributed a chapter titled "The Biology of Cancer with Special Reference to Cancar of the Lung. Experimental Studies." The only reference that that book contained to the question of carcinogenicity of asbestos was in the above-cited chapter by Hammond and Machle, who concluded that evidence for a causal role of asbestos in lung cancer vas insufficient. Accordingly, although various other individuals, including myself,had by that time been impressed by findings of lung cancer in asbestos workers, the evidence was not regarded as conclusive in the cited authoritative book published in 1956. Let it be remembered that, at that tima, data had developed to show that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer, hence sdght have caused the cancers reported in asbestos workers. At last November's deposition in your office, I was asked questions about my association with Dr. Anthony J. Lansa, who was Director, Institute of Industrial Medicine,' Mew York University, when I was on the full-time staff of that Institute as Assistant Professor, later Associate Professor of Industrial Medicine in 1949-1955. It was at Dr. Lansa*s suggestion that, in 1950, I visited doctors in England to leairn what information they had on cases of co-existing asbestosis and lung cancer. Z presented Information from those visits at an October 1950 meeting of Cancer Prevention Committee attended by Dr. Lansa who contributed comment in the discussion published with it in 1952 where cited above. Up to the time of the October 1950 meeting of the Cosnittee, I had been in charge of experimental studies of potential occupational carcinogens at his Institute. After that meeting, he allowed me to continue testing of carcinogens on the skins of animals, but he excluded me from inhalation studies of lung cancer for which I had prepared a review of the literature. ' ~n . i u ' wm Ptgi 3 That review was prasantad at a mating of Cancar Prevention Committee in November 1949, and was subssquantly pub1ishad (Lung Cancar with Special Reference to Experimental kvuj/jgtyk.H.A. Arch. Zndust. Hygiene a Occupational Medictn^^4709-^17, 1952). In tha aattar of asbestos, it questioned JJ/mk 212l/the only experiment reported up to that time r^wparlmantdi evidence fcr induction of lung cancar by as^fVtos. On receiving tha above-cited latter K&oxjfc 1954 advising of additional cases of lung can asbestos workers, I handed it on to Or. Lanza. Ha respond* th a vehement statement that researchers interested i occupational factors in cancer were trouble makers who wanted to pin cancer on industries. Shortly thereafter (June 1954), Dr. Lanza advised me that my appointment would not be renewed efter tho following year. It was not. In this matter. Or. Lanza made plain that he regarded me as a trouble maker for organizing the Cancer Prevention Committee and planning most of its meetings. Ten of its 1C published Meetings were concerned with occupational factors in cancer (Proceedings of the Cancer Prevention Committee. A.K.A. Arch. Indust. Hyg. 4 Occupational Medicine 5:185-289, 1952). The reprint of those Proceedings, introduced at my deposition, has these pages numbered as 1-105. As outlined on pages 3 to 5 of the reprint (pages 187-189 in the journal), purpose of the Cancer Prevention Committee was to study environmental factors in cancer by bringing together academic, management, labor and public health personnel. Two other situations in which Dr. Lanza obstructed studies of potential occupational factors in cancer involved research by Or. Arthur Vorwald and by Dr. W.C. Hueper. In 1952, Dr. Vorwald observed lung cancer in animals exposed to a dust containing beryllium compound. At that time, he was director of Saranac Laboratory, where he planned to develop further experiments on lung cancer. Dr. Vorwald resigned in 1953. At that time, Dr. Lanza stated to me that Vorwald was a trouble maker who wanted to pin cancer on industry, and that he (Dr. Lanza) had used his position on the board of that laboratory to bring about Dr. Vorwald*s resignation. In 1951, Dr. Lanza stated to me that Dr. Hueper at National Cancer Institute was causing trouble through studies of lung cancer in chromate.workers, and that he (Dr. Lanza) had called on the then Surgeon General and obtained assurance that all field studies by Dr. Hueper on cancer in relation to occupation would be discontinued. They were. This matter and Dr. Lanza's role in it was confirmed by a letter from Dr. Hueper entered in testimony in 1957 before a congressional committee cited at my deposition. e HI >4[i5? Page Before coming to Now York University, Dr. Lonso hsd boon employed in the insurance industry for many years. In those years and in his years at New York University, he waoatfflk.erned with questions involving claims for eosipensatlo^^V^dd^ses of occupational origin. In my view, the "trouble" thqt through his actions in regard to,, and the Cancer Prevention ConmitTf^ was unjustified compensation claims would implications or inadequate or misintej carcinogens. 2 can appreciate this allay Vcnrwald Lbilltyithat pepflVftive id data on potential In a Symposium on Cancer Prevention that I chaired Cor International Union Against Cancer, I presented a paper on "Environmental Factors in Cancer" (Acta Union Internationale contre le Cancer XIIX (1) 77*85, 1957). As brought out toward the end of that paper, X recognise that protection against unjustified claims is a proper function for physicians engaged in compensation problems, but actions should not be undertaken to obstruct research for identification of preventable hazards. I detail the above events today because X believe they support a view that identification of hazards, notably those with long latent periods associated with carcinogens, can progress more rapidly if compensation and liability matters are arranged in some way that will benefit injured persons without generating lawsuits that could destroy industries and lead to unemployment of large numbers of workers. In the matter of asbestos, in my years at New York University and subsequently, X have had numerous contacts with officers and employees of Johns-Manvllle in studies on health effects of asbestos. Throughout, X have found them interested and cooperative in seeking facts in the matter. They have as Individuals and as a company expedited and assisted my work on this subject. I have prepared this letter on my own initiative without' suggestion from or discussion with anyone. X trust it can be made part of my deposition. Sincerely, KES/elc Killian E. Smith, M.D. Director Health Research Institute 1/ - inn