Asbestos, Chapter II Stéphane Foucart, Le Monde, December 16, 2014 In July 2012, when she was Minister of Housing, Cécile Duflot had an excellent yet slightly preposterous idea: to award the health sociologist Annie Thébaud-Mony (Inserm) the Legion of Honour. The idea was excellent, because it recognized the value of the battles fought by the researcher, involved for three decades in occupational and environmental health. The idea was also preposterous, because those – such as Cécile Duflot - who know Annie Thébaud-Mony would know that the applicant was not going to let herself be domesticated by a medal, and she was not the type to receive the award in a grateful silence. In fact, things did not go exactly as planned. The researcher declined the red ribbon and took the opportunity to explain why in a letter to Ms. Duflot which had a certain impact. After thirty years of activity, she wrote, I have to state find that work conditions continue to deteriorate, that the health disaster of asbestos has not led to a strategy to fight against the epidemic of occupational and environmental cancers, that the failure to adequately address risks means that the most vulnerable are made to bear ... an increase of physical, organizational and psychological risks, in a climate of terrible indifference.” A high price to pay This indifference is not inevitable; it is constructed. Two and a half years after her stunning action, this is what the sociologist affirms in a severe and remarkable book, recently published (Science Enslaved, La Dévouverte, 309 pages, 21 €), which shows how ties woven between science and industry help maintain endless scientific pseudo-controversies regarding the harmfulness of such and such substance. The book is a personal testimony full of indignation, but it is also a profound reflection on the fragilities of science: science can become driven so as to construct doubt and delay policy decisions, to convert the requirement for scientific rigour into laissez-faire, a laissez-faire that always ends up being paid for. The bill usually arrives late, but it is paid at a high price, and is never, or almost never, paid by those who are responsable for the problem. The book reviews known stories - leaded petrol, asbestos, pesticides, ionising radiation, etc. - and it dissects the subtle mechanisms by which staff, institutions or scientific discourse can be turned around by special interests. ONE COULD THINK THAT THE ASBESTOS SCANDAL BELONGS TO HISTORY. THE CONTRARY IS TRUE. The asbestos scandal serves as a paradigm. One could think that it belongs to History, since everyone now knows that asbestos is a deadly poison. On the contrary! Surprising as it may seem, it is a struggle that is still played in the arenas of science. Every month, or almost, the chapters of what could be a new book by Annie Thébaud-Mony are being written. A godsend An example? A year ago a strong controversy arose (Le Monde, 18 December 2013) regarding work published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention (EJCP) conducted by two researchers. One of them, Paolo Boffetta, was about to accede to one of the highest positions in French public research in epidemiology. According to this work only old asbestos exposures are determinant in the development of cancer of the pleura (mesothelioma). Translation for the layperson: if you contract mesothelioma, your current employer is not responsible, even if he did not take care to remove asbestos in your workplace, because it is the exposure that dates back several decades that is to blame. A godsend for all industrialists with few scruples .... TIES BETWEEN SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY FEED ENDLESS CONTROVERSIES This work had aroused the indignation of researchers for several reasons. First, the study stemmed from a partial, thus suspect, analysis of the data, which concluded contrary to current knowledge about carcinogenic substances. Next, the authors wrote that they had no conflict of interests, whereas both of them were consultants to asbestos industrialists in trouble with the law. Moreover, they asserted that they had been funded by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer – a guarantee of neutrality - but this claim came at best from the imagination or at worst from deception. Finally, their work had been accepted by the editor of the EJCP after an expert peer review of ... four days, including a Sunday! All scientists know that this process usually takes several months, sometimes more than a year. Finally, Paolo Boffetta did not get the position he coveted. But the matter did not stop there. Kathleen Ruff, a Canadian human rights activist associated with the Rideau Institute, had the idea of obtaining an erratum from the EJCP simply specifying that the funding that was declared was imaginary and that conflicts of interest were real. This kind of correction is not a detail: in the courts, it can overturn a judgment. Her request was refused. Kathleen Ruff then engaged in a guerrilla of emails and petitions, and it took her a full year of fierce struggle to succeed: a correction of eight lines will appear at the beginning of 2015 in the EJCP. One year of battle to obtain from a scientific journal what would have been obtained within days from a British tabloid! Science, it is also that. And, to put it back on the rails when it comes to ethics, one must hardly count on its high-sounding institutions, but rather on the intransigeant benevolence of an Annie Thébaud-Mony or a Kathleen Ruff. [email protected] Tirage du Monde daté dimanche 14 Lundi 15 décembre : 329 413 exemplaires
Posted on: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:42:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015