Document wyRb6wGOr4VKnmbdOv49Lr6E

October 29,. 1957 Dr. William Pi Ash Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine The Ohio State University Columbus .10 Dear Bill: I am indeed aware of the status of the report of the , work, done by yourself and others In the survey of the Alcoa Plant at Niagara Falls in 19lfS. A report of this, you. will remember, has been put together in a satisfactory form for such a report. Borne consider able work would have to b e done to make this in- fo'rmatipn suitable for publication. I consider that it will be possible to publish this at s one tine in the not too distant future, since the Alcoa attorneys have already recognized that this would have served a useful purpose if it had been in the literature. I have worked along In this direction and I think the end is in sight. I agree with.you that this is tiaeful in formation and It should be published. . I must point oub to you however, that you are entirely mistaken In your belief that there was some Informal agreement between ourselves and Alcoa as to the publication of this material after the lapse of ten or more years. It is true that I have zealously guarded the right of the Laboratory to publish the results of its investigative work. On the other hand, I have recognized that our access to industrial plants, and our gathering of information about such plants and their employees, is in a totally different category than is our intramural experimental work. One enters an industrial plant solely with the consent of the management, and immediately assumes a doctor-patient relationship, unless some definitive understanding has been arrived at to the contrary, or unless on lias police powers, which under, law entitle him to anteir, observe, and report. The premises belong to the industry, the employees are the responsibility of the management in matters of occupational health, and on is dealing therefore, with responsi bilities and relationships, with which, as an outsider, one Is not entitled to meddle. There is no statute of limitations on such medical relationships; they are confidential and they remain con fidential. One gains access to industrial premises and industrial problems only with the consent of the management, and on a confid ential basis. This is the policy we have always followed in connection with plant surveys, and we camot publish Information of this sort, unless there has been a specific agreement, or unless specific consent is given. Dr. William P. Ashe. (2)- October 29, 1957 I agree that this has its disadvantages. However, this is the way it is, and ail we can do is to wait until consent has been given for the release of the information. It Is not even possible no refer to this information in any situation in which it may find its way directly, or indirectly into oublication. The existence of such information in the -hands of an investigator makes him subject to subpoena, and in dicates the probability of a report, which also may be subpoenaed. It is a very touchy business, therefore, to use data of this sort in suonort of a published opinion, since one nay bt required to substantiate the opinion expressed. This is one of the problems' which we have to face in connection with all industrial surveys.. I regret it, but. it-, ip a condition of our work, and the only people who gain access to the promises and ope rati, ohs of certain industries, are those who arc prepared to abide by these conditions. The moment one is considered to be uniraotwrrthy in this regard, that moment he is excluded from making observations. This is important to remember, in connection with your ov/n work, and therefore I make emphatic point of it, since we must work in industry if we are to knew cur way around, and we must, therefore, work under the conditions that are pre scribed. I cannot imagine any industry opening up its doors to medical and' hygienic investigators under any other set of conditions since-the-risks1 In these days are much too great- to ignore. Sincerely yours. RAK:ss Robert A. Kehoe, M.B. KE 0019749