A conference designed to address past criticisms of research on asbestos at McGill and to discuss the role of privately funded research at universities was hosted by the Faculty of Medicine on Oct. 1 at McGill.

The conference, titled “Asbestos: Dialogue for the Future,” was organized following a controversy in February 2012, when a CBC documentary challenged the findings of research conducted between 1966 and 1998 by retired McGill professor John Corbett McDonald. McDonald’s studies found that chrysotile asbestos was “essentially innocuous” and that no adverse health effects would come from its use excerpt at extremely high levels.

The documentary accused McDonald of misrepresenting his results and questioned the legitimacy of his research because it was funded by the asbestos industry.

“Professor McDonald’s research is still of huge concern today,” anti-asbestos advocate Kathleen Ruff said at the conference. “The asbestos industry is targeting developing countries, saying that chrysotile asbestos […] can be safely used [even though] no country has ever succeeded in safely using chrysotile asbestos.”

Last October, McGill released the report of an internal investigation on the studies by research integrity officer Abraham Fuks, who concluded that McDonald had publicly acknowledged the asbestos industry as his funding source and that he was not guilty of research misconduct. Tuesday’s conference is the result of a recommendation Fuks made in his report.

Dean of Medicine David Eidelman said that the event was planned to allow for an open discussion of the issues surrounding the controversy.

“We made sure it was structured in a way to make sure there was a very open and frank exchange of views, and make sure we seriously considered the issues that were brought up in the context of the McDonald controversy,” he said. “I was very glad to have the people who raised the controversy present so they could present their views.”

These critics included Ruff, who denounced McGill for holding an internal investigation on McDonald’s research rather than allowing an external party to examine the case. At the conference, Ruff emphasized that she will continue to push McGill to retract McDonald’s initial research despite the conclusions of the internal review.

“It’s a real concern that’s having impact in the real world, so it is important that McGill address this issue,” she said. “McGill should become a leader in Canada to introduce an effective ethical review system that protects scientific integrity and the public good.”

According to David Egilman- a professor at Brown University and critic of McDonald’s research in the CBC documentary- the way in which McDonald conducted his research on asbestos points to greater problems in the way corporate-funded research is conducted at universities.

“In [McDonald’s] case, money should have been given to the workers [and] the unions to hire independent experts to consult with them, to evaluate the protocols in the research, “Egilman said. “The same thing’s true for drug research- if you’re going corporate-funded pharmaceutical-medical research, there should be an independent group evaluation that research, but the norm [today] in drug research is that the data analysis is all controlled by the company.”

Jaye Ellis, a professor of law at McGill, said communication can be difficult between university researchers and corporations, as each player has a different understanding of their goals in the research.

“It’s not possible for all of the players in these relationships- the university, administrators, the corporation, the researcher- to be on precisely the same page,” Ellis said. “[We need to] talk about how we present communicative structures among these different players to protect the values that we want to protect- rigorous academic freedom, independence, and so forth.”

McGill has several Research Ethics Boards (REBs) intended to promote ethical standards of research and protect the rights and welfare of individual participants in research projects. Researchers must obtain approval for their project from an REB before they begin recruiting participants or collecting data. However, McGill philosophy professor David Weinstock criticized the way university researchers tend to view REBs.

“[Researchers] still have a version of REBs that reflects a conception of ethics that is altogether too superficial, too checklist-like, and too much at the talk end [of the process],” Weinstock said. “Everything that we do can be ethics-free until we get to that point when we have to fill out the ethics checklist and at that point all the important decisions have been made. That has to change.”

One potential solution that was suggested in the discussion was the creation of an additional body concerned with ethics at McGill, which would investigate and follow up on projects after they have received REB approval.

“All major corporate-funded research should set aside funds to establish an oversight board that is dominated by study subjects and the subjects [should] be given funds to hire a consultant who works for them,” Egilman suggested.

According to Weinstock, however, this idea presents logistical difficulties.

“Questions about composition, mandate, independence, [and] the purview become crucial,” he said. “We don’t have the time to do the kind of serious research on the ways in which these details would need to get worked out.”

While Eidelman said he could not comment at this time on how the ideas raised at the conference will be used, he emphasized the potential for improving the university’s ethics review system.

“There is an imperative for the Faculty of Medicine and the university […] to think about how we can make sure that when we’re doing research we’re really meeting the highest standards,” he said.

Ruff said she was skeptical about the effect the conference would have on corporate-funded and asbestos-related research at McGill.

“It’s a good opportunity for the issue to be discussed, but […] the conference is not a substitute for doing the right thing,” Ruff said. “I think that we still have a very serious problem in the way McGill has death with this issue of misuse of research and the asbestos industry influence. I don’t think that has been properly addressed.”

McDonald did not attend the conference.

—Additional reporting by Abraham Moussako

Review of supervision

Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Secretary-General Jonathan Mooney announced two major projects that PGSS is currently working on. The first is the improvement of the quality of supervision for students in all departments by clarifying students’ and supervisors’ rights and responsibilities. The second project focuses on ensuring that international students receive tuition waivers—a type of financial aid that reduces or eliminates tuition fees for students who qualify.

“We plan to work with departments and faculties to promote the use of funding that is sent by the central administration to the faculties to support and retain international students on tuition waivers for these students,” Mooney said. “Some of this money, which is tied to the number of international students in a faculty, seems not to be reaching these students.”

Fortier addresses funding, student space

Principal Suzanne Fortier fielded questions from graduate students at Council and outlined future projects. These include reviewing supervision and funding for graduate students. Questions mainly concerned the university’s financial situation and the lack of workspace for graduate students.

PGSS Financial Affairs Officer Erik Larson asked Fortier to explain the financial state of McGill. Fortier said that she places importance on putting money towards attracting talent to the university.

“If we agree that it’s largely about [investing in] people, maybe we’ll have to see other things that aren’t as good as we’d like them to be because while important, they’re not a top priority,” she said.

Economics Councillor, Guillaume Lord. expressed concern about the allotment of workspace for graduate students.

“Space is very uneven across departments,” he said. “A lot of people in our department do not have office space, and it was heartbreaking for me to see this at the beginning of the year. […] Office space is not only a workspace; it’s also a community space.”

Fortier said she had not known this was an issue, but that a solution would not be easy. She mentioned that she would add the issue to future discussions on issues of space at McGill.

“Physical infrastructure is an issue at this university,” Fortier said. “We’re pretty tight on space and we […] don’t have much extension room, and of course there’s the matter of funding.”

Tribune fee referendum

Council approved a PGSS referendum question regarding funding for the McGill Tribune. If the question passes during the November referendum period, graduate students will pay a non-optoutable fee of $0.75 to the Tribune for both the Winter 2014 and Fall 2014 semesters, with a vote on renewal in 2015.

“Right now, our mandate as a newspaper is only towards undergraduate students,” said Carolina Millán Ronchetti, editor-in-chief of the McGill Tribune, at the meeting. “However, we recognize that post-graduate students face unique challenges [ …. ] Membership will help bring more coverage [of] issues that pertain to post-graduates such as supervision and office space.”

Mooney explained that the Tribune ran a similar question last May, which asked graduate students for $1.00 per semester, but that the question did not pass by a small margin.

McGill Writing Centre

Another question Council approved to run in the referendum period is for a fee of $1.50 per term to support graduate use of McGill’s Writing Centre.

However, Council voted against a motion for PGSS to contribute a one-time sum of $3,000 from PGSS’s Special Projects Fund. Without the fund transfer, the Writing Centre will no longer offer tutoring services to graduate students.

Letter opposing Charter of Values

Mooney asked Council for feedback regarding a letter to Parti Québécois (PQ) leader Pauline Marois that he wrote on behalf of the PGSS, which expresses their opposition to the section of the proposed Charter of Values that bans public workers from wearing conspicuous religious symbols.

“Some of our members are technically state personnel [ …. ] and so [the charter] implicates us directly,” Mooney said. “Freedom of expression is particularly important in a university setting.”

Council was supportive of the letter, though upon the suggestion of  Lord, a section of the letter stating that PGSS does not oppose other sections of the Charter was removed.

Last Tuesday, McGill hosted “The Walrus Talks Energy,” an event intended to raise awareness about energy use and sustainable practices in Canada. The event was sponsored by Suncor, Canada’s largest energy producer and provider, and organized by The Walrus Magazine. It featured eight speakers of varying backgrounds and professions.

The Walrus Magazine is a general interest magazine that focuses on Canadian affairs as well as their relation to the rest of the world. According to Shelley Ambrose, co-publisher of The Walrus Magazine, the purpose of the event was to provide a platform for increasing knowledge about energy and driving the conversation on the future of energy in Canada.

“We need to have the conversation on energy in terms we can all understand,” said Ambrose. “To do that we need to achieve some energy literacy because creating a vision for the future is very challenging and complicated [.…] All of these amazing people doing these amazing things feed our brains and help us cope with these big decisions that we have to make.”

The speeches touched on a variety of issues, from the political climate surrounding energy and the pricing of energy to more specific topics such as the use of LED light- bulbs and the role of Indigenous peoples in a sustainable Canadian future.

Peter Calamai, fellow of the Institute of Science, Society, and Policy and one of the speakers at the event, talked on the importance of independent research in the energy sector and the need to change people’s perception of energy use in Canada.

“Canada’s use of energy is profligate, [it is] way above everyone else’s in the world, but most people don’t realize it,” Calamai said. “A lot of what’s going to help this problem are technical advances, but it’s also going to be major scientific discovery.”

According to Ambrose, the decision to hold “The Walrus Talks Energy” at an academic institution such as McGill was made as a way for promoting student awareness and involvement in the energy discussion. Kali Taylor, co-founder of Student Energy, a global movement of students focused on building a sustainable energy future, emphasized  the necessity of educating students on the issues in the energy sector.

“I think the way we think about energy is broken,” Taylor said. “Student Energy is a non-profit organization that focuses on educating the next generation of energy leaders and empowering them […] so our whole meaning for being is that we want students to be more educated, inspired and united to take on [….]energy in the future.’’

The event attracted over 200 students and members of the McGill community. Remi Kahwaja, U4 mechanical engineering, said he attended the talk because his career could be related to the topics that were addressed.

“You rarely hear about specific Canadian energy issues so I thought it might be interesting.” Kahwaja said. “I would like to work in the energy sector later in Canada, so it’s about getting involved.”

Mariana Smailes, U1 Arts and Science, said the talks were informative in relation to techniques on energy saving that can be applied across McGill.

“I’m actually working with the McGill Energy Project right now and so, as a student group on campus, we’re really interested with how energy is being efficiently used on campus,” she said. “It was very interesting to see some of the things they said that would be [applicable] at McGill that would change maybe the student perspective on energy.”