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 ofchrysotile 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 HeatherMunroe-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 toEidelman 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.”

Michael Paolucci

Michael Paolucci

A motion to censure SSMU VP External JoÃl Pedneault failed at SSMU Council’s meeting last night, March 29, with a narrow vote of 11 for, 11 against, and one abstention.

The motion, submitted to the floor by nine movers, cited several reasons for censuring Pedneault, such as using SSMU funds to print materials promoting a student strike, granting students and CLASSE members after-hours access to the SSMU office, and participating in picket lines for other Montreal universities. The motion also referenced that this week Pedneault was banned from the university campus for five days.

The motion was addressed during confidential session and then debated at an open session in front of a full gallery, which included members of campus political groups, including the Mobilization Committee (Mob Squad) and the Moderate Political Action Committee (ModPAC). Despite a subsequent vote, Council did not vote in favour of debating in confidential session.

Kady Paterson, education representative and a mover of the motion, said that the motion was drafted on the day of Council.

“It’s us [movers] trying to keep our executive accountable and make sure that our constituents’ opinions are heard,” Paterson said.

SSMU president Maggie Knight opened the debate by emphasizing the gravity of a motion to censure.

“Censure implies misconduct. It implies that policies, rules have been violated-not that somebody’s actions were disagreed with,” Knight said. “Regarding the concerns around VP Pedneault’s political actions, I think it’s very importantfor the SSMU as it goes forward [to consider] that no executive, councillor, or any other member of the society be a scapegoat for policies people disagree with.”

Senator and VP University Affairs-elect Haley Dinel explained her rationale for being a co-mover of the motion.

“It’s because of the actions, not because of the person,” she said. “It’s mainly because a lot of students this year have felt that the way the VP External portfolio [sic] has acted and has not [represented] undergraduates as a whole.”

Several councillors were vocal about their concerns with the motion.

“I feel that this resolution to censure VP Pedneault would effectively mandate him to not do his job, which to me [is] a contradiction of what we should be promoting the executives to do,” Carol Fraser, VP Clubs and Services, said.  “The pull of Council is to promote executives to do their job. If this resolution passes, I don’t know exactly what VP Pedneault is expected to do.”

Arts representative Justin Fletcher described the atmosphere during debate as tense and emphasized the small margin of the final vote.

“It was crazy to hear that it was a tied vote with one abstention,” he said. “I think it reveals some of the divided sentiments on campus.”

Following the meeting, Pedneault said he was surprised that the motion was submitted.

“A lot of concerns they raised I never had even gotten an email about,” Pedneault said, referencing the clauses regarding after-hours use of SSMU facilities. “The most shocking part of it was the allusion to disciplinary proceedings against me on campus,” he added.

“The discussion at SSMU is ‘do we censure JoÃl Pedneault, in part because he was censured by the university in some way?'” he said. “I don’t see how it makes any sense in terms of challenging power dynamics and abuses of power, and I think it’s a real shame that that’s the discussion we have tonight instead of ‘do we condemn the university’s arbitrary exclusion of three students from campus for no clear reason and no clear procedure?'”

Both Fletcher and Paterson noted that the debate might have been different had it occurred in a confidential session.

“I think it’s fine that [the motion] didn’t pass,” Paterson said. “I think the point was to voice our concerns and air our problems, and actually give them some weight … I think that’s what we’ve done. Passing doesn’t matter.”

Pedneault noted that he will continue to support the strike and the Quebec student movement against tuition increases.

“If the censure motion had passed, I think I still would have been able to walk with my head high,” he said. “I don’t see myself as having committed anything wrong, overstepping any boundaries or going against SSMU mandates.”

On March 26, SSMU VP External JoÃl Pedneault and two other anonymous McGill students were excluded from the McGill campus for five days, until Friday, March 30.

Pedneault’s exclusion from the campus followed an incident after a UQAM professor held his class in room 348 of the Frank Dawson Adams building on Monday. According to Pedneault, the action was intended as a means to work around the strike currently occurring on the UQAM campus.

Pedneault had been invited by the UQAM Science Students’ Association to observe and potentially mediate the class discussion and was the only McGill student in attendance, along with five or six people from the student association, and approximately 10 students attending the class.

 “There was no picket line, just people explaining that they’re on strike and that they should respect the strike,” he said. “It was really peaceful, just a discussion, people were discussing the merits of the student strike.”

After 45 minutes, the UQAM professor cancelled class, and it was around this time according to Pedneault that a McGill security agent showed up, remaining only for a couple of minutes.

Pedneault received an email a few hours later from Associate Dean (Student Affairs) Andre Costopoulos stating that “I have reasonable grounds to believe that your continued presence on campus is detrimental to good order.” Pedneault’s exclusion from campus falls under Article 21(a) of the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures, and the email concluded stating that “At the end of this period, I will decide whether I want to recommend an extension of your exclusion under Article 21.”

“It’s kind of a troubling situation, in the sense that they basically have the ability to exclude people from campus with very vague reasons and there’s no clear way to contest it,” Pedneault said.

“This is also not the first time that McGill files disciplinary proceedings against me,” he added. “In a way it’s not surprising. I’m a strong advocate of certain political positions.”

According to Pedneault, the two other students who had received similar emails informing them of their exclusion from campus had been distributing flyers with information about the student strike outside of a class whose student association had voted to go on strike.

McGill website’s blog regarding demonstrations outlines that “Most offences under the code and most circumstances that lead to exclusion from campus under Article 21(a) involve allegations and reliable preliminary evidence of repeated and systematic infringement of the rights of others in one form or another.”

“Peaceful assembly, free expression, demonstration, those are never a problem,” Costopoulos explained.

Costopoulos was unable to comment on specific cases, however he noted that instances such as students physically blocking access to classrooms or students who continue to pursue discussion on political topics with disregard to a professor’s attempts to begin lecture, could fall under breaches of the code if allegations were submitted.

“There are some grey areas there, I agree,” Costopoulos said of the code of student conduct. “The basic question that you need to ask yourself always is, is there an infringement on someone else’s rights in what I’m doing … If you’re infringing somebody’s rights then probably it’s an offence under the code.”

“It’s clear in my mind that it’s an explicitly political move on the part of the university,” Pedneault said. “All of the three people who were banned from campus support the student strike and part of the student movement and it’s definitely in relation to that.”

“No one is facing disciplinary action for free expression or demonstration or for assembly,” Costopoulos said, “the only cases that I’m aware of are cases in which there’s a specific breach of the code of student conduct.”

McGill’s blog, however, notes that “Article 21a is not itself a disciplinary sanction, and that it does not constitute evidence of a breach of the code of student conduct.”

Pedneault has been able to access his SSMU office to continue his work as VP External this week, but the exclusion has had an effect on his ability do his work.

“It’s slowing down the kind of work that I can do, not in a very significant kind of way but in a way that’s definitely annoying,” he said.  

Pedneault is currently attempting to follow through with Student Advocacy as well as with VP University Affairs Emily Clare on the potential abuses Article 21(a) can invoke due to an unclear appeals process.