University of Auckland Professor of History, Professor Linda Bryder, published an account of Green’s study, arguing against almost every aspect of the Report, and defending Green's claims to the Inquiry that there was no experiment and that his ‘treatment’ was not ‘unfortunate,’ but was a cautious approach reflective of medical uncertainties relating to the significance of positive smears and concerns about over-treatment. Bryder’s account has been strongly criticised. Complaints to the University of Auckland about Bryder’s interpretation can be found here: http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=92 By contrast to these criticisms, historian of medicine Ilana Lowy who has written extensively on the history of cancer, including cervical cancer, in Britain and Europe, in a review in the book, wrote of Bryder’s ‘careful display of the complexities of the management of uncertainty in treatment of cervical malignancies’, and Cambridge Professor Emeritus of Haemotology Robin Carrell praised the book as ‘an outstanding example of the beneficial function of the medical historian.’ Similarly, Raffle et al support Green’s practices in a new look at the Cartwright Inquiry itself (chapter 8). Case study 8.5 within an international textbook on screening emphasises that Green's vulnerability to attack for his conservative approach stemmed from the worldwide uncertainty of evidence about cervical screening in the 1960s and the lack of agreed policy and quality standards for delivering a programme. The authors conclude that 'the practice that led subsequently to condemnation of Herbert Green was the fact that for several years during the late 1960s he conducted minimal excision by punch or wedge biopsy, with careful follow-up, for symptomless lesions detected through cytology and histology, including for some patients whose lesions were reported as showing evidence of microinvasion. This was at a time when there was ample scientific reason for concern about the damage caused by hysterectomy or cone biopsy and uncertainty about whether immediate use of these procedures was automatically the best thing to do for symptomless lesions, particularly in young women who might want children. Green's practice, although motivated by a desire to avoid unnecessary and damaging interventions in symptomless women, was easy for others to condemn due to the lack of any relevant policy, research, or ethical framework for cervical screening at that time.' The Case study authors note that the number of women managed by limited biopsy alone is shown in Appendix 3 of the Inquiry Report. There were 5 patients managed by limited biopsy only, with no