Reliance, Not Responsibility: Relations Between Science and Industry

Our plain-English summary of Reliance, Not Responsibility: Relations Between Science and Industry, by H. Rodenberg (American Journal of Public Health, 2019).

The study

• Author: H. Rodenberg
• Journal: American Journal of Public Health
• Published: 2019;109(7):980-981
• Type of article: Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This was an editorial, an opinion piece, not a research study. It reported no new data on asbestos exposure or disease. The author commented on a separate article in the same journal issue by Rosner et al., titled "Nondetected: The Politics of Measures of Asbestos in Talc," which looked at the history of measuring asbestos in talc. The author wrote that the cosmetic industry appeared to have held the better hand in that history. In the author's view, any fault seemed to be shared between industry and government. The author also wrote that a critical review might find that terms such as "nondetected" and "asbestos-free" might well be misleading, but that their use to the regulated limits of detection was factually correct. The author proposed that "reliance" describes industry's relationship to science better than "responsibility," and that accountability shows up as "risk management." The author concluded that public health arguments need to be framed in terms that attract corporate attention, rather than as appeals to right and wrong.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Editorial (opinion commentary); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial comments on another article in the same issue, Rosner et al., on the history of measuring asbestos in talc
• Exposure: Asbestos in talc, discussed in terms of the cosmetic industry and regulatory standards for detecting asbestos fibers; no exposure was measured
• Main results:
  • No data were reported. The author's view was that fault seemed to be shared between industry and government
  • The author suggested that a critical review might find that the terms "nondetected" and "asbestos-free" might be misleading, but that their use to the regulated limits of detection was factually correct
  • The author proposed "reliance" as a better term than "responsibility" for industry's relationship to science
  • The author argued that accountability remains present but takes the form of "risk management"
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that public health arguments about industry and science need to be framed in terms that attract corporate attention, rather than as simple appeals to right and wrong

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Talc and vermiculite.

Related studies

• Science or public relations? The inside story of the Asbestosis Research Council, 1957-1990 — G. Tweedale (2000)
• Industry responsibility for the use of its products — P. Kotin (1979)
• Talc pneumoconiosis in the textile industry — B. Mann, J.B. Deasy (1954)
• A case of lung adenocarcinoma complicated by pulmonary talcosis occurring in a patient employed in the confectionery industry — K. Kobayashi, N. Watanabe, et al. (2019)
• Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law — D. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2014)
• Mortality rates among nuclear industry workers at Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre — R.R. Habib, S.M. Abdallah, et al. (2005)

Browse more research in American Journal of Public Health, or return to medical research.