The originality of a study published in a prior issue of the British Journal of Industrial Medicine was questioned by NIOSH researchers in this letter to the editor. These researchers had collected and provided the data used in the study to the authors of the questioned study for auditing purposes and had previously published a report based upon these data. The authors of the NIOSH study objected to the lack of citation of their study in the subsequently published report as well as unexplained changes in the number of workers reported to have been in the cohort, the other authors conducting analyses of their data in addition to auditing data collection, inconsistencies in the analyses, and what they felt was a misrepresentation of the researchers who actually conducted the study. The authors of the study in question responded that they were hired by the Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA) for the NIOSH study with the understanding that HIMA and/or its consultants would audit and verify NIOSH's data and analysis. These authors further stated that NIOSH subsequently refused to provide all of the data necessary for such an audit and analysis and that they were then awarded a contract by HIMA to conduct an independent study of the same cohort. These authors stated that they conducted such a study using employment records microfilmed by NIOSH, as well as additional employment records, vital status information from various sources, and death certificates. They addressed the specific issues raised in the original letter.