On Tuesday April 3, Dr. David Eidelman, vice principal (health affairs) and dean of medicine, announced the completion of the preliminary internal review of professor J. Corbett McDonald’s research on the health effects of chrysotile asbestos.

The review was conducted by professor and chair of the department of epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health Dr. Rebecca Fuhrer. The results of the preliminary review were published in last Tuesday’s email from McGill’s Media Relations Office (MRO), several weeks after they were planned to be released at a senate meeting in mid-March.

“There was no attempt to delay, it just simply took time to get the information … and decide on the proper course of action,” Eidelman said in an interview with the Tribune. “We are very concerned about research integrity … and that’s why we’re making a careful effort to go through things as they come in.”

Although the internal investigation found no evidence of misconduct, Eidelman has consulted McGill’s Research Integrity Office (RIO) for advice on how to proceed.

“What we’re doing now is not an investigation,”  Eidelman said. “At this point, all I’ve asked for is an opinion from the RIO … on whether there is a basis to proceed with any further investigation.”

McGill came under scrutiny in early February following allegations in an episode of CBC’s The National that McDonald, a retired professor and chairman of the department of epidemiology and health, colluded with the Quebec asbestos industry to downplay the health repercussions of chrysotile asbestos. The CBC documentary also claimed that McDonald received a total of nearly $1 million in research funding from the industry between 1966 and 1972.

In response to the allegations, Eidelman announced on Feb. 9 that the faculty of medicine had decided to launch a preliminary review of McDonald’s work, in order to determine whether McDonald allowed his research to be improperly influenced by the asbestos industry.

“You remember, [this research] was done decades ago … so it was done in a very different context,” Principal Heather Munroe-Blum said to campus media on March 27. “Our dean … has a deep concern about the issues, but the fundamental issue is that of the quality of the research, and that’s being investigated very thoroughly.”

Kathleen Ruff, a senior human rights advisor to the Rideau Institute, is among those actively criticizing McDonald’s research and his connections to the asbestos industry.

Ruff and Dr. Fernand Turcotte, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Laval University, sent an email to Eidelman and Fuhrer on Feb. 12, stating that Fuhrer’s review “fails to meet normal standards of independence and transparency and is being carried out in a climate tainted by a strong perception of bias.”

“[Dean Eidelman] provided no answer [to our Feb. 12 email], which provided examples of improper conduct by Prof. McDonald,” Ruff said in an email to the Tribune. 

Eidelman declared that Fuhrer’s report “did not see any evidence of research misconduct.”

“Dr. Fuhrer was very rigorous and … her results were [based on] the information that she had in hand,” he said. “She looked at all the documents that were available [which] were mostly published material.”

“She tried to look for original data, but did not find any,” Eidelman added.

In the wake of ongoing criticism of McDonald’s research, Eidelman stressed the importance of differentiating between research misconduct and difference of opinion.

“[Research misconduct] means making the effort to either hide, make up, or change data to suit somebody’s other purposes,” Eidelman said. “Some of the allegations involve [disagreement with Prof. McDonald’s opinions] or the way he handled himself.”

Eidelman stated in the April 3 MRO email that he would keep the McGill community informed regarding the RIO’s decision.

Ruff voiced her dissatisfaction with the review process and the results that emerged.

“The internal review was carried out in secret …  No one knows what information was examined,” Ruff said. “The review clearly was not able to be thorough since, as dean Eidelman states, they did not have access to required records and data.”

Ruff also expressed her hope that the RIO will recommend that there be “a proper, transparent investigation.”

“All independent, reputable scientific bodies reject [McDonald’s] position as [based on] dangerous, incorrect information,” Ruff said.

“It is so important that McGill finally show integrity and … stop being a weapon in the arsenal of the international asbestos industry,” she said. “I don’t see how it is possible to sweep all these disturbing allegations under the carpet and dismiss them after an inadequate, internal, secret process.”

The McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA) and the McGill administration have resolved the remaining outstanding issue on their collective agreement and are preparing to finalize proceedings. The agreement, ratified by MUNACA’s members on Dec. 5 after months of negotiations, marked the end of the union’s three-month strike last fall.

On March 9, approximately 250 MUNACA members demonstrated in front of the James Administration Building to protest a delay in finalizing and signing the collective agreement with the administration.

The delay involved an article that addresses individuals whose salaries exceed the pay equity line drawn in 2001, and would allow them to receive salary increases as a one-time lump sum.

MUNACA had requested a list of the individuals who would be affected by this article and received 80 names from the administration during negotiations. However, according to MUNACA President Kevin Whittaker, the administration later announced that over 40 names had been added to the original list without an explanation.

According to David Kalant, MUNACA’s VP Finance, the union met with McGill human resources twice since the rally, and resolved the issue at their last meeting on March 28]

“The number [of people in the final list] increased by 20,” Kalant said. “They will receive lump sums for step increases and economic increases too.” 

Associate Vice-Principal (Human Resources) Lynne Gervais said that McGill sent MUNACA the latest version of the agreement on March 30 and is awaiting the union’s response before translating the final agreement into French, as required by Quebec law. Once a translation is ready, both parties will be able to sign the agreement.

“It can be signed [in] as quickly as a week, as soon as the two parties look at the French version, but I don’t know,” Gervais said.

Kalant noted that MUNACA members are frustrated that the agreement has not yet been finalized.

“The membership is understandably not happy with the delays since none of the agreed-to increases and retroactivity can be paid until the contract is signed,” he said. “It is unfortunate that the administration tried to alter what was agreed to during conciliation in a way that MUNACA could not accept.”

“This increased delay was, in the end,  totally unnecessary,” Kalant added.

Gervais reflected on the year-long negotiations with MUNACA.

“It was a very long process and clarity of definitions needs to be even more precise,” Gervais said. “That’s what I learned.”

In an interview with campus press on March 27, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum briefly addressed the pending collective agreement.

“As principal, my hope and my goal is to have this signed and to move on, and certainly for our employees to have access to their compensation,” she said.

Michael Paolucci / McGill Tribune

Polling for SSMU’s exceptional referendum period opened  on Tuesday, April 10.  The voting period features two referendum questions-one regarding the existence of the Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG), and the other concerning the online ratification of motions passed by the SSMU General Assembly (GA). Created following a two-thirds majority vote in SSMU Council, the exceptional referendum period runs until Monday, April 16, when Elections SSMU will announce the results.

QPIRG

QPIRG’s referendum question asks students to support the existence of the organization. Student support for QPIRG will allow the organization to enter into negotiations with the administration over the renewal of its Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), allowing QPIRG to keep its office space and student fee collection for the next five years.

Members of the organization have worked all year in preparation for their current MoA’s expiration on May 31. Students voted in favour of an existence question that QPIRG ran in the fall referendum period, but the administration invalidated the results, stating that the single question dealt with two separate issues-the organization’s existence and its bid to become opt-outable offline.

To avoid another invalidation, the administration proposed the wording of QPIRG’s new question, which asks only that students support the organization’s existence. Student fees will remain opt-outable only online.

Lena Weber, QPIRG board member and member of the ‘Yes’ committee, said that the most important challenge QPIRG faces this referendum period will be reaching quorum during such a busy time of the semester.

“We’re very confident that we have student support, but we [have] to get people out to vote,” she said. “Fortunately we have the campaign from last semester to build off of, [when] we reached out to a lot of people.”

According to Weber, if the question does not pass, QPIRG will cease to exist as a McGill organization and will no longer have access to their office space. They could try to return as a new student service, but that bureaucratic process could take a long time.

Even if students support QPIRG’s existence in this referendum period, Weber said that the organization will continue to struggle with increasing student opt-outs, and will be forced to scale back on their programming.

“We’re excited to put all of this behind us and then just continue to work on how we’re going to sustain ourselves as an organization,” she said.

However, chair of the QPIRG ‘No’ committee Elissa Brock argued that student money should not support the specific political views of organizations like QPIRG. She also said that only 39 per cent of QPIRG’s money supports student life on campus.

“The whole point of [McGill student] groups is to unite students on campus,” she said. “QPIRG didn’t start as a campus group. We think that the fee levy program should be going to student-run activities that support student activity on campus.”

Last week, the QPIRG ‘No’ committee received two sanctions from Elections SSMU, both dealing with online campaigning. One sanction dealt with “slanderous campaigning” for posting false information about QPIRG on the committee’s Facebook event, and the other  was for sending Facebook messages promoting the ‘No’ committee events page to ‘friends’ of the QPIRG opt-out Facebook profile. Brock declined to comment on the sanctions.

 Online ratification

The second referendum question proposes that all motions passed at the SSMU GA should be submitted for online ratification, and that the quorum of these ratifications be fixed at 10 per cent. The referendum was prompted by a survey in the fall, when 88.8 per cent of students indicated support for moving the final vote in the GA online.

Chair of the ‘Yes’ committee Kathleen Sheridan pointed to the current GA’s many problems, including the current unrepresentative nature of the GA, where quorum is only 100 students.

“The idea that 0.4 per cent can make a binding resolution on the other 99.6 is insane,” she said. “Feeling like my voice is being silenced because of my schedule feels innately wrong to me. Online voting will give me my voice back.”

Sheridan emphasized that the referendum will not change the basic nature of the GA and that students will still be able to debate and propose amendments in the GA before the motion is submitted for ratification.

“We think that this online voting system will actually strengthen the results coming out of the GA,” she said. “In fact it may encourage more people to get more involved in politics as they see these motions coming out of the GA.”

However, chair of the ‘No’ committee Chris Bangs suggested that 10 per cent quorum would be difficult to reach for non-controversial motions, and that this kind of online ratification will weaken the motions passed by SSMU since the majority of voters will not be engaged in the debate.

“A general assembly is a very community-based political choice,” he said. “You are there to make a decision as an individual, but you do so in the context of an event that’s shaped by a narrative and an experience that’s defined by the groups that [are] there. If you’re sitting at a computer screen clicking ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ that is an individual experience.”

Bangs said online ratification would create additional bureaucracy and make time-sensitive motions impractical. Bangs suggested other ways of making the GA more effective, such as simultaneous online voting, secret ballots, and proxy voting.

“I think there are really good ways to make General Assemblies more representative so that more people show up and vote at them,” said Bangs. “I think that we should explore those first, without going to extreme and radical steps like this.”