This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
—We have read your editorial, "Misleading Methyl Chloride Publicity" (The Journal, January 24, p. 272). Assuming that you present data to substantiate your criticisms it is, of course, your privilege to disagree with results that the Bureau of Mines may publish. However, technical criticism is a different matter from indulging in such outbursts as that in your concluding paragraph:"It is unfortunate that a branch of the government, the Bureau of Mines, which has had such an enviable record in the past, has recently seemed to be swayed to serve more the interests of certain chemical manufacturers than to serve the interests of the public. It is laudable that the government should investigate general hazards to the public, but it is quite unfortunate that independent action may be threatened by considerations arising from the fact that research is carried on under 'cooperative agreements.'"For some years the
Aub JC, Drinker CK, Drinker P, Edsall DL, Hamilton A, Hunt R. "MISLEADING METHYL CHLORIDE PUBLICITY". JAMA. 1931;96(8):632. doi:10.1001/jama.1931.02720340062027
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.