I've done some work for a research team dealing with air exposure to known and suspected carcinogens and (I think) I can appreciate both sides of this. In order to do the research my team signed various agreements related to data and any publication is dependent on approval from the data sources. Science is about free publication but we don't own the data so we have to play by their rules to access it. The primary reason in our case was an earlier publication of preliminary data that had been sent to media and caused a big stir with damning headlines. Unfortunately the legitimately scientific practice of publishing whatever you have and letting the scientific community build on it becomes quite problematic when the media broadcasts interim results as findings (and then land values plummet, or political pressure halts a multimillion dollar project). So there might be a legitimate reason for the legal threats (Though the article implies otherwise)
On the other hand, pinning down environmental causes of cancer is shockingly difficult and even partial results are very useful for the research because we simply can't put a test subject in a box and pump it full of a chemical to see if they get cancer. Most known carcinogens (by the IARC definition) are known through studies on workplace exposure.
It would be a serious blow if the study had concrete evidence but the legal threats managed to delay publication until after IARC finishes its review.
> It would be a serious blow if the study had concrete evidence but the legal threats managed to delay publication until after IARC finishes its review.
In fact, it would probably result in liability. We can only hope that they have their heads handed to themselves if true.
On the other hand, pinning down environmental causes of cancer is shockingly difficult and even partial results are very useful for the research because we simply can't put a test subject in a box and pump it full of a chemical to see if they get cancer. Most known carcinogens (by the IARC definition) are known through studies on workplace exposure.
It would be a serious blow if the study had concrete evidence but the legal threats managed to delay publication until after IARC finishes its review.