Document ev53dLzkqZkD8aDrbp5q5Vg7M

December 1, 1961 Herbert E. Stokinger, Ph.D. Occupational Health Headquarters U.S. Public Health Service 1014 Broadway Cincinnati 2, Ohio Dear Herb: Thanks for sending me Exner's Manuscript. It is Just about as I expected it to be. I return it herewith. While it is in the nature of a credit to be hated and attacked by such a man in such a cause, there are two statements in the article concerning The Kettering Laboratory about which the truth should be known. I am sure that very few reputable scientists will question seriously the integrity of the University of Cincinnati, The Kettering Laboratory, its staff, and myself, in particular. On the other hand, the statement has been made frequently (by Earner and others of his ilk, including Tom McCarthy of Cincinnati), that the Laboratory is bound by its agreements with sponsors to honor "confidential"information, and that, as such, it cannot and does not publish lnicrmation that is opposed to the interests of its sponsors. There is Just enough of near truth in this to / undermine the position of the Laboratory as a source of the whole truth. It is of some consequence that our colleagues should know the facts, and, therefore, I present them to you for such use as they may be to you. We work with and in Industry in professional relationships that are confidential, Just as a physician works with patients. We do not divulge the facts concerning the "illnesses" of our "patients", and we agree not to divulge trade information of economic value which has been given to us In professional confidence. On the other hand, the investigative work done in the Laboratory is ours to publish where and when we will. The clause relevant to this in our agreements holds that, prior to publication the manuscripts of reports or articles shall be submitted to the sponsor for comment and criticism. Not, you wil* note, for consent to publish, but for such suggestion as may eliminate inadvertent or erroneous statements. The final judgment as to what is to be said is ours. The University Board would never consent to anything closer to censorship, even if I were to desire it, which would hardly be likely. Incidentally we did not publish a report on Donora, for the reason that the report of the Service had been published, and we had too little to add to It to Justify the expense of publishing it. If I am sensitive to such statements as Exner's,lt is because the 00177 IS 24655 Herbert E. Stokinger, Ph.D. -3- December 1, 1961 handling of such issues makes the difference between honesty and reliability and the reverse. One cannot ignore or straddle them. I am sure that you have little concern about these matters, but they are important to me. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Kehoe, M. D. RAK:ss inclosure: Earner's Manuscript