A long legal battle over a health study of $ 11.5 million to determine whether the diesel exhaust damage the lungs of miners suddenly expanded to take on review by scientific peers. Editors at least four research publications say they have received a letter informing them against "the publication or other distribution" of data and draft documents. The warning, including a vague statement about "consequences" that could result if the advice is ignored, signed by Henry Chajet, a lawyer at Patton Boggs law firm in Washington, DC, and a lobbyist for the group mine awareness resources, which works on behalf of the mining industry.
Chajet declined to comment, but his letter, it is clear that he seeks to persuade reviews for delay publication or distribution of documents containing the results of the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS) , a research project funded by the government. The letter stressed that the mining industry coalition of groups are legally entitled to examine the study data prior to publication. Other lawyers and researchers involved in the case also declined to comment because the 2-decade dispute over DEMS is now pending before the US Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The diesel study, the planning began in 1992, is jointly managed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). He monitored the health of more than 12,000 miners exposed to diesel exhaust in underground spaces. One of the objectives of the study (which controls for smoking) was to learn how miners developed lung cancer. NIOSH currently diesel exhaust class as a "potential human carcinogen", but new data could lead to a review of that assessment.
The timing of the publication of DEMS data is critical because two prestigious groups, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program of the US are set to review their standards on risks to the health of diesel exhaust. Their decisions could have financial consequences for many diesel engine users, particularly in lawsuits claiming damages.
A coalition of industry, including mine awareness Resource Group, has long argued that DEMS was scientifically wrong. The first coalition took the federal government to court in the 190s, arguing that the industry should be more involved in monitoring DEMS. The case went through several hearings (details below), resulting in a court order that requires scientific DEMS deliver all data related to DEMS, including scientific articles projects on the basis of these data, the coalition of mining and House of representatives Committee on education and the workforce, which claims jurisdiction under consideration. The coalition and the Committee have the right to examine the data for 0 days before publication.
Editors at two Publications- UK labor and environmental medicine ( OEM ) and The Annals of Occupational Hygiene -Say they received the Chajet letter warning them not to publish the results DEMS or even move around the draft documents. Science obtained a copy of the letter, which said, in part, "We respectfully request that you and your Board to carefully consider any intention to publish these [DEMS] documents, as well as the impact and . the consequences of all this publication "He continues:" [W] e provide you notice of this situation in the hope that if you are considering the publication or distribution of these documents, refrain from doing so, until that orders and judicial Congress guidelines are met, or otherwise resolved. "(Read the full text of the letter.)
Dana Loomis, editor of OEM and epidemiologist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said:" I was completely surprised "by the letter, especially since OEM has not and never had paper DEMS in the study." It is a vague but threatening letter, and I think his imprecision is what makes it remarkable, "said Loomis." It shows how the legal system can be used to restrict scientific communication. "Loomis said he doubts the court decisions would even apply to scientific journals, particularly those based in another country.
another recipient, the Annals of Occupational Hygiene had already published some DEMS work in October 2010-long, four-part explanation of the methodology of DEMS. (parts one, two, three, and four here. the Annals published a refutation of six scientists working for the mining group a few months later, in April 2011.)
Trevor Ogden , a retired physicist and editor of Annals , said his newspaper has accepted the four documents in February 2010 publication usually takes 7 weeks after acceptance, but the various actions delayed publication justice in this case for months. The newspaper also accepted a fifth paper in February 2011, but is still waiting for permission to run DEMS.
Ogden said: "Despite our efforts to be neutral on various controversies, this newspaper has often been accused of being on the side of employers. However, I am disgusted by the many actions taken to delay [the DEMS] publications and avoid opening them to public scrutiny. " Ogden added that the letter he received was sent to two other publishers as well, but they refused to be named.
Loomis said Journal of the National Cancer Institute already has a document outlining the main conclusions of DEMS. A spokesman declined to comment when JNCI had received a letter.
By jumping up and down through the court system, the legal case has stretched almost as long as DEMS and turned several times on bureaucratic minutiae. The first dispute involved whether DEMS should include industry representatives on scientific oversight committee. The two sides also disputed exactly who should have jurisdiction over DEMS. Finally, a court decision forced DEMS filing a charter with a US House committee. This would have had to go through the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. But the US Department of Health and Social Services (which oversees NIOSH NCI) presented falsely claims to another committee. This inevitably brought new trial, with accusations that DEMS was trying to "evade transparency." DEMS Personnel file with the appropriate committee of the Senate.
Litigation on the erroneous filing went to court Federal Lake Charles, Louisiana, where judge Richard Haik ruled in March 00 DEMS had to return all data on mining groups and the House Committee on education and the workforce. Haik indeed their granted the power to stop DEMS publish results.
Dems leaders have appealed, and the Court of appeal of the United States of New Orleans has canceled a large part of the court decision less than in May 01, saying that DEMS had the right to publish. However, he said that scientists had to return all data and drafts in the mining coalition and the House for consideration of committee and that these examiners should obtain materials at least 0 days before publication.
The legal fracas began again in 2010 and 2011, The Annals ready to publish the four methodological documents. Mining groups have accused scientists DEMS had withheld data and not put draft documents before submitting them for peer review, in violation of court orders. The case is returned to the judge Haik, which again ruled in favor of mining groups, taking the federal government in contempt and reaffirming that the DEMS scientists must return all data and projects of all documents they intend to publish. The decision also ordered the people to notify DEMS scientific journals that newspapers are not allowed to move all the projects they had already received. The case has since been appealed and argued before the Court of Appeal of New Orleans US; a decision is expected soon.
0 Komentar