Last week, Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, announced that 50 cancers would be added to a list of health conditions covered by a $4.3 billion fund for those who were exposed to carcinogenic dust following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Though we applaud the amazing efforts of all those who responded to the terrorist attacks, we ve suspected that the decision to cover these cancers was not rooted in science. And frankly, we re not alone. In an Associated Press article released yesterday, commentary cited by two experts supports our suspicions. To imagine that there is strong evidence about cancer resulting from 9/11 is naïve in the extreme, said Dr. Donald Berry, a biostatistics professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Dr. Alfred Neugut, a Columbia University oncologist and epidemiologist, was also quoted in the article. I understand the urge to want to compensate and reward the heroes and victims of that tragedy, he said. But if we re using medical compensation as the means to that, then we should be scientifically rigorous about it.
When scientists step out into the public forum and stand up for science, instead of sentiment, we applaud their efforts. We d like to thank Drs. Berry and Neugut for sticking to the science, against the tide of public and media pressure.